House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

[EagleKeeper]

As I offered, when America's wealthier and wealthiest citzens are paying pre-Reagan tax rates, and when military expenditures come down to reasonable levels, the idea of other reductions in spending become reasonable. Not until.

What do you define as reasonable military spending? 0?

Percentage of GDP?


A better question is what would you want the military capacity that you would allow be able to do?

 

[her209]

Why can't these intelligence agencies be consolidated?

United States

Independent agencies
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
United States Department of Defense
- Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA)
- Army Military Intelligence (MI)
- Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
- Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA)
- National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
- National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
- National Security Agency (NSA)
- Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
United States Department of Energy
- Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI)
United States Department of Homeland Security
- Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)
- Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS)
United States Department of Justice
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
- Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
United States Department of State
- Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
United States Department of the Treasury
- Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

 

[MovingTarget]

Why can't these intelligence agencies be consolidated?

Because military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

:whiste:

 

[MovingTarget]

What do you define as reasonable military spending? 0?

That would be an ideal military spending level. We would love to live in a world where militaries were unnecessary. It isn't practical, however. Even the most ardent pacifists realize this. Guns vs. Butter, my friend.

 

[Patranus]

Screw 250 billion per year

Rand Paul says he has some ideas to cut down on spending, including slashing food stamps for the poor.

Paul says he wants to save 500 billion dollars in a single year, and roll back federal spending to 2008 levels.

Paul's legislation would cut 42 billion from the food stamp program; that money coming from the Department of Agriculture.

That would be a 30 percent reduction in spending.

Paul also says he would eliminate many programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/...00_Billion_in_One_Year_114670769.html?ref=769

 

[Jhhnn]

Screw 250 billion per year


http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/...00_Billion_in_One_Year_114670769.html?ref=769

Rand Paul is a loon, and anybody with a few grey cells knew that all along.

Let's make Kentucky a test case for his ideas, see how that works out...

 

[matt0611]

Rand Paul is a loon, and anybody with a few grey cells knew that all along.

Let's make Kentucky a test case for his ideas, see how that works out...

Weren't people bitching about republicans not offering enough cuts?
Well there you go.
Even Sen Paul would admit this is only one small step.
The statists will call anyone who proposes to cut government a loon.

And we wonder why we're so fucked? :|

 

[Jhhnn]

Weren't people bitching about republicans not offering enough cuts?
Well there you go.
Even Sen Paul would admit this is only one small step.
The statists will call anyone who proposes to cut government a loon.

And we wonder why we're so fucked? :|

I never offered that Repubs weren't cutting enough, so keep your strawman.

And if Rand Paul is so sure this is the right way to go, and the people of Kentucky elected him, then they should be the ones leading the way in implementation, right?

Why, when the rest of us see just how wonderfully it's working out for them, we'll be clamoring for the same thing ourselves...

Even Looney Tunes should lead by example...

 

[matt0611]

I never offered that Repubs weren't cutting enough, so keep your strawman.

And if Rand Paul is so sure this is the right way to go, and the people of Kentucky elected him, then they should be the ones leading the way in implementation, right?

Why, when the rest of us see just how wonderfully it's working out for them, we'll be clamoring for the same thing ourselves...

Even Looney Tunes should lead by example...

Implement what? Kentucky is a state. It has different duties and responsibilities than the federal government. States are not supposed to be run the same as the federal government. Each state should take care of their own budget.

Senator Paul is part of the US Federal government congress. They write laws and make budgets for the US Federal government, not for Kentucky. Its pretty simple to understand.

 

[extra]

Funny that the republicans are making all this noise now, but when they are actually the ones in charge of everything all they do is raise spending to record levels...funny that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Implement what? Kentucky is a state. It has different duties and responsibilities than the federal government. States are not supposed to be run the same as the federal government. Each state should take care of their own budget.

Senator Paul is part of the US Federal government congress. They write laws and make budgets for the US Federal government, not for Kentucky. Its pretty simple to understand.

Heh. The program is administered at the state level, so Congress can just allow states more "States Rights" in how the programs are handled.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=618

And Kentucky can lead the way into that bright libertopian future. Rand Paul can then bring home the no-bacon, and all the mow-rons who voted for him will be tickled pink, right?

 

[matt0611]

Heh. The program is administered at the state level, so Congress can just allow states more "States Rights" in how the programs are handled.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=618

And Kentucky can lead the way into that bright libertopian future. Rand Paul can then bring home the no-bacon, and all the mow-rons who voted for him will be tickled pink, right?

Hard to do that with the massive federal government spending 2.5 trillion per year and rising.

I still see nothing wrong with advocating for a smaller federal government if you believe that its too big.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hard to do that with the massive federal government spending 2.5 trillion per year and rising.

I still see nothing wrong with advocating for a smaller federal government if you believe that its too big.

Now you're just dodging. If Kentucky wants Rand Paul, and this is what Rand Paul wants, I say let 'em have it, as an experiment of sorts.

Think of all the money they'll save- they won't even have to think about drug testing recipients, because there won't be any.

 

[matt0611]

Now you're just dodging. If Kentucky wants Rand Paul, and this is what Rand Paul wants, I say let 'em have it, as an experiment of sorts.

Think of all the money they'll save- they won't even have to think about drug testing recipients, because there won't be any.

Dodging? I think I may be just missing or misunderstanding about what you're trying to say? sorry

 

[chucky2]

He's trying to say Kentucky can just not take any Federal dollars and lead by example. I think many of the states should do just that:

Not take any Federal dollars, and not send any Federal dollars either. Which means they'd be free to run their state as they saw fit. I wonder how long the Fed would allow that......me thinks the Fed would be caving first.

Chuck

 

[Patranus]

Rand Paul is a loon, and anybody with a few grey cells knew that all along.

Let's make Kentucky a test case for his ideas, see how that works out...

You realize that cutting 500 billion per year only reduces the deficit by 33% right?

They still need to cut the budget by another 1 TRILLION dollars to balance it.

Its a shame, the budget deficit in Bushes last year was only 400 billion.


Hell, the budget deficit is 1.5 TRILLION dollars. In the 2010 budget there was only $1.368 billion dollars of discretionary spending. The rest goes to social security, medicare, medicaid, and interest.

 

[chucky2]

Then add all the state, county, and local deficits on top of that....yikes...

 

[BoT]

such as cutting the Ready to Learn TV Program, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, the elimination of the Energy Star Program, and cutting subsidies to the Woodrow Wilson Center.

so this is what the people want?

laying off 15% =( of the civilian federal workforce is good? more unemployed and no cuts in overhead.

i think they should start cutting from the top but i know that won't happen.
they make sure that they seats are covered.

btw, if you make less $250k/yr don't think that there will be any benefits for you in these budget cuts. same goes for universal health care, if you make less then that why the heck would you be against it and even if you make more, it's not like they giving out bonus checks if we don't get the universal healthcare.

the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 90% of the folks that think they are in middle, newsflash, you will be on the upper end of the poor scale.

 

[Darwin333]

Heh. The program is administered at the state level, so Congress can just allow states more "States Rights" in how the programs are handled.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=618

And Kentucky can lead the way into that bright libertopian future. Rand Paul can then bring home the no-bacon, and all the mow-rons who voted for him will be tickled pink, right?

Isn't that pretty much exactly the same argument the left laughs at the right (and rightfully so) for using concerning taxes?

 

[Darwin333]

He's trying to say Kentucky can just not take any Federal dollars and lead by example. I think many of the states should do just that:

Not take any Federal dollars, and not send any Federal dollars either. Which means they'd be free to run their state as they saw fit. I wonder how long the Fed would allow that......me thinks the Fed would be caving first.

Chuck

I think the Fed would quickly make examples of some of the states residents by throwing them in jail for tax evasion. The rest will be tripping over each other to mail in their tax payments.

Its not like the money goes to the state first and then the Feds.

 

[Darwin333]

Funny that the republicans are making all this noise now, but when they are actually the ones in charge of everything all they do is raise spending to record levels...funny that.

Yeah, the Republicans sucked ass while they had control, including spending, but oh how I would love the "good old" deficits of the Bush years.

 

[chucky2]

I think the Fed would quickly make examples of some of the states residents by throwing them in jail for tax evasion. The rest will be tripping over each other to mail in their tax payments.

I think the Fed folks that came to do that would be thrown in jail themselves if that happened. Hard to throw someone in jail when you're in jail yourself.

Its not like the money goes to the state first and then the Feds.

But it could. Nothing prevents that from happening except people doing what the Fed. wants. If you're not taking Fed money, then you're free to do what you want, Fed has to take action if they don't like what you're doing. But, if you're not taking their money, exactly what are they going to do?

One state does this, it gets laughed at. 10 states do this because the actions of the Fed Gov are sinking them, no one will be laughing, at least at the Fed.

Chuck

 

[Patranus]

Funny that the republicans are making all this noise now, but when they are actually the ones in charge of everything all they do is raise spending to record levels...funny that.

Huh?

When the Republicans were in charge (after Clinton) the national debt went from 5.7 trillion to 8.7 trillion over 6 years.

That is 500 billion per year deficit spending.

When the Democrats took control of capital hill in 2007 the national debt went from 8.7 trillion to where it is now at 14.1 trillion. That is roughly 6 trillion over over 4 years.

Hell, the national debt was 10.6 trillion when GWB left office and now, only 2 years later it is 14.1 trillion. or a 3.5 trillion dollar increase over 2 years.

ya, thats 1.75 trillion in deficit spending per year under 100% Democrat control.