^should read (or public radio)
^should read (or public radio)
Wendell Gee wrote:
Does this surprise you at all? Did you really expect the GOP to make serious spending cuts? Are you that naive? Based on what historical precedent would you have expected that?
1994 Congress: see Newt Gingrich/Contract with America.
It saved Clinton's presidency and gave him credit for bringing down the deficit.
The debt was reduced during Clinton years due to increased revenue as a result of the internet bubble (end of story).
I was you, 25 years ago wrote:
Wendell Gee wrote:Does this surprise you at all? Did you really expect the GOP to make serious spending cuts? Are you that naive? Based on what historical precedent would you have expected that?
1994 Congress: see Newt Gingrich/Contract with America.
It saved Clinton's presidency and gave him credit for bringing down the deficit.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
asdgfh wrote:If you characterize it as the same, you're not looking at the numbers.
Out of control spending is a symptom of both parties. Are you really going to try to convince anybody that republicans are in favor of low spending based on their record?
No, I'm not arguing that Republicans have a record of low spending. I'm arguing that there's a difference between having a record of big spending (Republican Congress) and the completely out of control borrow like there's an unlimited supply of lenders out there spending (Democratic Congress).
The budget deficit had risen to over $400 billion under Republican control. Prior to the Democratic takeover of Congress, the budget deficit had fallen to around $200 billion. The next year it rose to $500 billion, then shot up well over $1 trillion for the following years. Deficits in the $200-400 billion dollar range are bad, but in terms of the size of our economy are sustainable for quite a while. Deficits over $1 trillion are not sustainable for the long term.
If you really think there isn't any difference between running a $400 billion deficit and a $1.5 trillion deficit, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
While the Clinton years did see great gains as a result of Reaganomics, the truth is that the 94 Congress cut spending. The left was all up in arms about it.
The Truth Seeker wrote:
The debt was reduced during Clinton years due to increased revenue as a result of the internet bubble (end of story).
I was you, 25 years ago wrote:1994 Congress: see Newt Gingrich/Contract with America.
It saved Clinton's presidency and gave him credit for bringing down the deficit.
Karen Goucher wrote:
The OP is an El Paso County loon. They've defunded their government there so much that it's become a haven for crime. Figures that this mental giant would suggest cutting back on peanuts when his own congressional district is the recipient of so much pork-barrel spending via the military. Given this slowpoke's wonderful contributions in the field of physiology, cutting back on every future grant for his research would be the most apt place to start right now.
I get no research money, genius. I am not involved in research. My organization also does not receive a dime of federal tax payers dollars.
Even with an increase in crime, COS is still a far better place to live than 90% of the rest of the nation.
Yes, COS gets a lot of military money. A big difference is that the Constitution provides for the federal government to defend the country. The Constitution does not say to pay for art.
XY wrote:
I like NPR, to me it would be a shame to see it go.
No one ever comments on where US can cut from defense and security, because no one really knows what is spent and where in its entirety. I think thats by design.
We need to withdraw from Afghanistan. We could save a ton of money right there and save some valuable programs here. The Afghan central Govt that has no effect on most outlying areas, so even a "victory" means that you still cant control what goes on there. Let economics fix that country.
One of the reasons military costs are as high as they are is that the contractors figure out that to get a weapons system rolling and to keep it going they would spread the work out across as many districts and states as possible. They went even further to make sure some of those jobs were in the districts of the folks on the appropriations committee.
Also, Congress has been known to fund projects that the Pentagon does not want or need. Why? See above.
The reality of pulling out of Afghanistan is that it could create a vacuum where Al Qaeda could rebuild training sites and safe havens for future attacks. Obama has realized this and cannot take the chance of it happening on his watch. I predict that Obama will kick the can down the street to his successor (which I hope comes in 2013).
So? The budget is not defined by the Constitution, either. Public education, which clearly failed you, is not provided for by the almighty and archaic Constitution, either. The Constitution had to be amended to get rid of slavery, so it's not the sacred document that myopians like you make it out to be.
A majority of the military budget is superfluous to the practical defense of the country. And Colorado Springs is certainly not a "far better place to live than 90% of the rest of the nation" by any objective metric. It's pretty average, in fact, which is why the best and brightest in the USA don't live there, as a rule.
There are two elephants in the room. 1 is defense spending and 2 are entitlement programs like social security and Medicaid.
I believe the US spends as much on defense as every other country on earth combined. Folks - we don't need to. The Cold War is over, there are no looming dangers to our nation that merit what we spend.
The U.S. and the world are so much safer than when I was young (70's and 80's) yet nobody seems to recognize this. When I was a kid, we had a superpower that hated us that had missiles aimed at every conceivable target there is in our country.
What do we have now? A bunch of bozos hiding in caves plotting our demise.
What is the worst possible thing that could happen with the threats of today? I'd say it was 9-11. Hey, that sucked real bad - about 3,000 people died. Compare that to what could have happened on a bad day during the Cold War. Hmmm... perhaps all of NYC would be destroyed and radiation would pollute for centuries.
That is not to minimize the threat of terrorism or the need for defense or to go after these folks. But, you'd have a hard time convincing me that a 10% or 20% cut in defense spending would make any difference at all in how safe our country is.
Mojo Jerkin wrote:
I believe the US spends as much on defense as every other country on earth combined. Folks - we don't need to. The Cold War is over, there are no looming dangers to our nation that merit what we spend.
Good luck getting through to the paranoid, delusional boobs who let mass media play on their insecurities with that reality.
asdgfh wrote:
If you really think there isn't any difference between running a $400 billion deficit and a $1.5 trillion deficit, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
There's a big difference. If you want to play the partisan political game I guess you can blame all the difference on Democrats if you want. I saw a lot of Republicans and a republican administration lining up to hand out trillions of dollars in corporate welfare to banks and car companies among others.
I see no evidence that either party is serious about cutting spending. The proposals in the original articles are an absolute joke.
Mojo Jerkin wrote:
There are two elephants in the room. 1 is defense spending and 2 are entitlement programs like social security and Medicaid.
I believe the US spends as much on defense as every other country on earth combined. Folks - we don't need to. The Cold War is over, there are no looming dangers to our nation that merit what we spend.
The U.S. and the world are so much safer than when I was young (70's and 80's) yet nobody seems to recognize this. When I was a kid, we had a superpower that hated us that had missiles aimed at every conceivable target there is in our country.
What do we have now? A bunch of bozos hiding in caves plotting our demise.
What is the worst possible thing that could happen with the threats of today? I'd say it was 9-11. Hey, that sucked real bad - about 3,000 people died. Compare that to what could have happened on a bad day during the Cold War. Hmmm... perhaps all of NYC would be destroyed and radiation would pollute for centuries.
That is not to minimize the threat of terrorism or the need for defense or to go after these folks. But, you'd have a hard time convincing me that a 10% or 20% cut in defense spending would make any difference at all in how safe our country is.
Would that be in dollars or percent of GDP?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
asdgfh wrote:If you really think there isn't any difference between running a $400 billion deficit and a $1.5 trillion deficit, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
There's a big difference. If you want to play the partisan political game I guess you can blame all the difference on Democrats if you want. I saw a lot of Republicans and a republican administration lining up to hand out trillions of dollars in corporate welfare to banks and car companies among others.
I see no evidence that either party is serious about cutting spending. The proposals in the original articles are an absolute joke.
I don't think I was blaming everything on Democrats and I think we likely agree on the "Republican administration" to which you refer.
Perhaps, the proposals in the original article are an absolute joke, but can you compare them to the Democratic proposals? Are there any Democratic proposals?
Karen Goucher wrote:
Mojo Jerkin wrote:I believe the US spends as much on defense as every other country on earth combined. Folks - we don't need to. The Cold War is over, there are no looming dangers to our nation that merit what we spend.
Good luck getting through to the paranoid, delusional boobs who let mass media play on their insecurities with that reality.
Also, good luck to the millions of Mercans who love the entertainment factor of bunker busting bombs, videos of hellfire missle strikes, etc. Shut up and pass the popcorn!
or how about ... wrote:
Karen Goucher wrote:Good luck getting through to the paranoid, delusional boobs who let mass media play on their insecurities with that reality.
Also, good luck to the millions of Mercans who love the entertainment factor of bunker busting bombs, videos of hellfire missle strikes, etc. Shut up and pass the popcorn!
Same difference.
Easy, cut $200B out of the military budget. This will also help reduce the interest we are paying on military-related debt. Duh.
Mojo Jerkin wrote:
....
What is the worst possible thing that could happen with the threats of today? I'd say it was 9-11. Hey, that sucked real bad - about 3,000 people died. Compare that to what could have happened on a bad day during the Cold War. Hmmm... perhaps all of NYC would be destroyed and radiation would pollute for centuries.
....
I would say that possiblity of NYC being destroyed and radiation pollution for centuries is STILL on the table and being plotted by those bozos hiding in caves.
Spare a tinfoil hat, brother?
They need to cut the VA and turn it over to Kaiser Permanente, close military bas golf courses, halt military retirements, pensions and medical benefits of civil servants, congress, and president, and cut farm subsidies.
Karen Goucher wrote:
So? The budget is not defined by the Constitution, either. Public education, which clearly failed you, is not provided for by the almighty and archaic Constitution, either. The Constitution had to be amended to get rid of slavery, so it's not the sacred document that myopians like you make it out to be.
A majority of the military budget is superfluous to the practical defense of the country. And Colorado Springs is certainly not a "far better place to live than 90% of the rest of the nation" by any objective metric. It's pretty average, in fact, which is why the best and brightest in the USA don't live there, as a rule.
Last first, do you live in COS? Have you ever been here? If you do live here, then I would apply a saying often heard in Atlanta: Delta is ready when you are. The only measure that really matters to me is my measure. I have chosen to live here. It really matters little as the population has grown so there must be something appealing about the place compared to places that are losing population (pretty much the entire NE) or whose rates of increase are well-below.
You are RIGHT for once on public education and the federal constitution. Congratulations. The framers did not foresee a role for the federal government in education. Many (all?) state constitutions do. The 10th Amendment leaves those areas not enumerated in the Constitution to the states.
The Constitution (a document that had to be written so as to be ratified by colonies/states that were wildly different) does not include the word slavery. It appears in the 13th and 14th amendment. Article 1 deals with the importation of persons (a euphemism of course) and does not prohibit it. Although it sets up and end to it in 1808.
I bet you are thinking of the 3/5 provision--a means of counting for apportionment only.
Slavery was (and still is since it is practiced in some parts of the world) a horrible thing. A war was fought over it and ended it. The Constitutional process did allow for the end of slavery, but it could not be done that way.
Sacred is a strong word for me. What I like about the Constitution is that originally set about to place limits on the federal government. Limits which no one can factually deny have been obliterated through a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and the "general welfare" clause by legislators and by the courts. The Constitution also set up an incredible system of checks and balances on power. Despite that, too often all 3 branches have chosen to expand the reach of the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans.
Back to the spending issue: If the GOP cannot see fit to cut NEA, NEH and CPB, how is it ever going to have the balls to cut any defense spending (and I think there are cuts that can be made there) or tackle entitlements. If the GOP will barely cut its own office/staff budgets (and those are cuts from a huge increase under the Democrats), I am not confident it will be able to cut other spending--although it is always easier to tell someone how to act than it is to act properly yourself.
As far as I can tell, you do not disagree that spending needs to be reigned in. The question is from where and how much.