Congressional panel proposes $4 trillion in cuts

At 2008 spending levels (including reducing defense spending) we would still have 800 billion to a 1 trillion dollar deficit. Until we fix the income part (i.e. the economy) and get that back and unemployment down (i.e. a lot of the increase in spending), we are not going to be able to balance the budget. Corporations should pay no income tax. The money that goes to gov could instead go to shareholders or reinvested. Both are far, far superior to giving it to government.

luv2run wrote:

Actually if the feds would just hold spending at 2008 levels, the budget would get balanced in a few years. Then we could start tackling the debt.

As far as corporations paying no income tax, that sounds great. I will have my corporation pay me no salary and have it pay for whatever I want. It will be great living tax free....

I personally am against public funding of radio or TV programs. There are plenty of options. My guess is that NPR (and PBS too for that matter) are perfectly commercially viable. If not, there are plenty of other outlets that are.[/quote]

Then all you'll get is sound bites and headline-only journalism, with no in-depth analysis or debate because there isn't sufficient time, in the 40 minutes or so per hour that remain between those awful commercial breaks, for commercial networks to cram in their content. This is one of the great problems in the US today: few people take the trouble to become informed about issues and if you take away one of the few remaining information sources, that number is likely to diminish even further. This is especially true when it comes to elections, which tend to be dominated by sound-bite (and often misleading) advertizing. The recent election was the worst example of this syndrome that I have experienced. Without NPR/CBC, where will you go to find informed debate?

...meant to say NPR/CPB...

Everything is on the table. Federal Funding for Myth based Hate groups will certainly be eliminated.

Dave Hill wrote:

Then all you'll get is sound bites and headline-only journalism, with no in-depth analysis or debate because there isn't sufficient time, in the 40 minutes or so per hour that remain between those awful commercial breaks, for commercial networks to cram in their content. This is one of the great problems in the US today: few people take the trouble to become informed about issues and if you take away one of the few remaining information sources, that number is likely to diminish even further. This is especially true when it comes to elections, which tend to be dominated by sound-bite (and often misleading) advertizing. The recent election was the worst example of this syndrome that I have experienced. Without NPR/CBC, where will you go to find informed debate?

It doesn't sound like NPR is doing much to stop the trends that you find so distasteful in politics and journalism. I guess because the market for that type of journalism isn't very big. I'm not convinced that is correct and I think NPR could survive in its current form without governement support (after all most of the funding comes from corporations, foundations, and individual donations now). Anyway, I think letting the coverage of NPR compete with other outlets in the free market is preferable to having the government sponsor a news agency.

Great.

Let's lower taxes that the rich pay, increase regressive taxes, and take away Soc Sec and Medicare benefits from the middle class and working class. That's some real solid long term thinking -- if you are a sucker

Why do you support Zionism? Are you an American or a traitor?

Uncle Pervy wrote:

What's really funny... putting the $2 million spent on NPR on that list. Talk about pandering to the right. $2 million dollars in savings is nothing. Trying to silence your critics... priceless.

.

The real question is why do the corporations own the airwaves? Shouldn't this be owned by the citizens? Shouldn't every channel be NPR?

The debt reduction plan sounds like a good idea.

Our country has overspent, considerably, thanks to both Democrats and Republicans getting votes by spending on their supporters, even trillions on credit to get and hold political power in the last decade or two.

Our choices are two, for each probram, abolish the program they established, or cut it back dramatically.

Military spending. We should keep a national military, but cut it back dramatically, including battles fought for others elsewhere.

Social security: We should keep it. but cut it back dramatically, including raising the 62 year old option for getting payouts. Sixty two? Nobody should be asking for a handout, based on age, that young. 63 is reasonable and generous, so is 64. Raise the bigger payout age to 68 or 69 too.

Medicare: We should keep it, but starve the greedy hospitals, doctors, and hospital companies that bleed every segment of society dry. Get them off the government teat, a lot. Ten twenty thousand dollars per day for medical treatment in a hospital? Thievery.

Here is an opinion article on the proposal from the economist. It basically says that the proposal has something for everyone to hate, which basically means its a really good idea. However, the author points out that America's fiscal situation is really not that bad since investors worldwide are starving for America's debt which is still considered to be the safest in the world and that it would take a whole lot for the US to approach any actual trouble. However, it is still better to err on the safe side.

We don't have to, in fact we shouldn't enact the full plan that the commissioners proposed, but we should definitely simplify the tax code by eliminating most deductions, reduce military spending, reduce social security spending, and cap health care spending.

And to all that talk about NPR, start you own damn thread. There is no room in a discussion about deficit reduction to talk about the merits of a $2 million program.

Oh okay wrote:

I love how liberals claim they're worried about the deficit as an excuse to raise taxes. Truth is they dont give a shit about the deficit or the debt. They want more tax $$$ to spend more on votes.

What you SHOULD have written was:

I love how right-wingers claim they are worried about cutting the deficit when most of their policies (Iraq War, unfunded Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D) are what is DRIVING the deficit. They don't give a shit about the deficit, they just want to get votes by saying "CUT TAXES ACROSS THE BOARD", when really they only want to make significant tax cuts for rich people. This policy wins with both poor and rich because dumb blue collar slobs like yourself think the republicans are doing something for you (When in reality, what is $100 gonna do for you? NOTHING), and rich people pay back the republicans for the mega-tax breaks with huge donations.

Night Runner wrote:

Pelosi is the only person who, too often, has stood between your grandma and grandpa living in abject poverty and living a half-way confortable life. Hurray for her and her decency.

Or are you like the right wing nazis who want life to end at 65 since they are no long productive and do not contribute to the capitalistic system?

Actually, the only thing that stood between my grandfather and abject poverty was his death in 1935. If Pelosi is now able to give him a "half-way comfortable life," she can have any job she wants.

I think that anyone who is familiar with my social and political views would have no problem distinguishing me from a right-wing nazi.

From what I know so far, I like the commission's plan. It seems like the kind of proposal that smart people who aren't running for office might suggest, or that smart people who are running for office might agree with in private. I think it's a shame that Democrats, in particular, are railing against it.

this panel would have a shred of credibility if it didnt simultaneously endorse tax cuts for corporations and endorses tort reform as the sole means of reducing costs in an industry that enjoys antitrust exemption and profit margins that turn wall street green

what did obama expect when he appointed a commission comprised of a republican majority

raise taxes on the rich, who enjoyed benefits disproportionate to their contributions over the last 20 years as the middle class was eradicated and the aristocracy flourished. cut entitlement programs that enslave the youth to subsidize a generation whose insatiable appetite put us trillions in debt. reduce the welfare empire that is the professional military

however, reform cannot happen. americans cannot conduct themselves as adults. they are like children gorging on candy, only they puke in the face of their children

It' odd but I don't see any cuts to Obamacare.

Yes... End Tax Payer Bailouts and price supports called Farm Subsides.

Here's a great web site called the Environmental Working Group:

http://farm.ewg.org/

They have a database where you can search any zip code or person/farm to see what they've hauled in from you during 1995-2009. So, look up your neighbor or friendly farmer and see how bad they've been 'suffering'

It ain't about saving the family farm. It's glorified welfare for a select group of people and most of these people don't need it. Or putting it simply, it's bullshit.

You want to make some budget cuts, get rid of Farm Subsides and let the free market work.

You'll also find that many of the Fed Reps serving on the Agricultural committees are recipients. Big time conflict of interests.

We'll see how far this goes when it comes time to do some cutting?

read the proposal. it pushes for reducing tax rates for the rich and corporations more dramatically than for the rest and providing protection for corporations from lawsuits as a way to reduce costs.

tax cuts for the people who benefited the most during the past 20 years, and benefit cuts for the people who suffered the most during the collapse of the past 2.

the commissions fundamental premise is: the average citizen needs to subsidize corporate earnings and the standard of living the rich have become accustomed to. it's class warfire, and the aristocracy are decimating a middle class brainwashed by corporate news networks' propaganda and an educational system that would be the embarrassment of many 3rd world nations

WAKE UP

Cut spending, cut spending

Don't raise taxes, don't raise taxes

yada yada yada

Will someone explain how eliminating a deduction, like home mortgage interest deduction is NOT raising taxes??

In Canada they don't have this deduction and ALOT of homeowners have their homes paid off!

I think government salaries should be capped at $50K/year. That goes for everyone - Obama, Pelosi, and the janitor in the building. NO MORE GOVERNMENT FAT CATS!!!!

I think corporate salaries should be capped at %50K/year. No more golden parachutes and huge bonuses!!!Seriously, if you capped government salaries like that you would have no quality, talented people working for the government. This would include all of the scientists working on medical breakthroughs and basic science that drives our future economy.

obamanationthinking wrote:

I think government salaries should be capped at $50K/year. That goes for everyone - Obama, Pelosi, and the janitor in the building. NO MORE GOVERNMENT FAT CATS!!!!