The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Republican Leaders Poised for $100 Billion In Spending Cuts. ONLY?!!?!?

Republican leaders, predicting a change in leadership in the House, and even the Senate, are announcing their plans for when they take over.  As Fox News reports, Rep John Boehner is proming to enact cuts in spending, tax breaks, and other actions that could total a whopping $100 Billion dollars.

WOW!!!  A whole $100 BILLION!?!?  "Thank you kind sir, may I have another?"

WASHINGTON -- Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.
Most agree a marquee item on a new GOP majority's agenda would be an aggressive package of spending cuts, on the order of $100 billion or more, that could also be paired with steps to block implementation of key parts of Obama's health care law and new financial regulations.


That is all the cuts they could come up with?  100 billion dollars?  With a 2010 budget of over $3.5 TRILLION dollars, they could only find $100B to cut?  If my math is correct, that is only a 3.3% cut

After a $650 billion increase over 2008's budget, they couldn't find more than $100 billion to cut?

They couldn't include the expiration of the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts"?

They couldn't find as much as the $787 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the Stimulus Bill).

There's the $400 billion left over from the Stimuls Bill.

How about the $50 billion for teachers, schools and firefighters? 

How about the $51.7 billion for the State Department, of which a large portion goes overseas?  Or the direct $126 billion for foreign investments?  How about the $7 billion for the National Science Foundation or the $1.1 billion for something called the "Corporation for National and Community Service"??  Or the $46.7 billion from the Department of Education?

How about putting a callback on the TARP funds?  There should be about $100 billion left outstanding there, right?

How about kicking the UN out of the US and then dissolving our interest in it?

We are spending more for Social Security ($678 billion) now than we are for our national defense ($667 billion).

We are spending more for Welfare ($79 billion) than we are for Homeland Security ($43 billion).

Is there no one that can grab a knife and start cutting this budget?  Heck, I'd even take a butter knife at this point.



#1 Jonathan 28-Oct-2010

I'd be extremely surprised if they even slow the growth of the budget to less than average.

They'll talk a big talk (well, big for them - $1T worth of cuts would be exciting) for as long as they know Democrats will stop them. 

Mark this in your book - I bet you a dollar that the budget will not even be frozen, much less reduced.

#2 captainfish 28-Oct-2010

I'll take that bet and raise you $1 that you are right.  Budget will be increased over this year's $3.55 T.

I don't believe these Repub leaders for one minute.  These are the same guys that came in around 1994, and helped ramp up spending and pork.

#3 xuinkrbin. 03-Nov-2010

I agree with captainfish.  Between Reagan, 2 Bushes, Nixon's 70% increase, and Eisenhower's huge jump, the GOP should not be counted on to cut spending.  The only time spending slowed (not shrank) was when Newt shut the government down in the 90's and Clinton jumped in the polls for it while the GOP took the blame.  In fact, the government got larger than if it hadn't been shut down because of all the overtime needed once things got moving again.

I will say this, even though I might have to pay more in taxes, at least President Obama wants to use that tax to pay for all of this spending now instead of pretending somehow lower taxes will reduce the deficit.  Liberal?  Yes.  Spender?  Yes.  But I know what I'm getting, whether I like it or not.

#4 captainfish 03-Nov-2010

Thanks X.  Yes, I tend to have a pessimistic view of the Repubs.  They have let me down time and time again.  However, they are our nations only hope.  Take a look at what liberals have done to California.  They are getting close to being bailed out by the FEDS.  California is destined for bankruptcy and you have elected the worst man, besides Obama, to be your leader.  He will only cater to liberal ideology and union bosses.

California's glory days are gone thanks to liberals.  

"Tea Party, you're my only hope!"

Hey X, instead of raising taxes to pay for all the spending, what is wrong with cutting out all the excess spending, waste, fraud, and irresponsible earmarks and pork?  If we were to cut our budget down to pre-Bush times, then we won't have to have higher taxes.

Oh,, and if you are so willing to pay more in taxes, then you are free to do so.  Just please don't mandate that everyone else does as well.

#5 xuinkrbin. 03-Nov-2010

California's problems are actually systematic (and of the state's making).  The state constitution requires a specific percentage of the state budget be spent on one thing or another, leaving little wiggle room for emergencies.

To keep the DNC's base in the state (and the RNC's in Orange County) happy, Congress will find a way to lend the state money, if needed, so no bankruptcy occurs.

As far as cutting spending goes, Representatives and Senators like being able to direct projects to the respective districts and states too much for that to happen.  It's why, when Newt wanted to, say, spend $10 billion on a program and President Clinton wanted to spend $20 billion on it, a compromise was reached $50 billion.  ;-)  Plus, one misconception is the fact the deficit is caused solely by spending increases when it is really a combination of spending increases and lower tax collection due to the recession.

Last, I didn't say I was willing to pay higher taxes, except to comply with the law (tax evasion is a 'crime'; tax avoidance is a 'duty').  I am simply saying I at least know what I am getting: 'tax and spend' instead of 'borrow and spend'.  I am not saying it is either good or bad.  I am just saying I know what I am getting.

#6 captainfish 03-Nov-2010

Aaahh, got ya.  Ok.  My bad.  But don't you feel even the slightest bit dirtier knowing that your tax dollars are being wasted?  Wasted on things that should have never been passed?

As far as what is a deficit, your basic definition is true.  However, if Congress operated like a family, then there would be no increase in the deficit during a recession or Depression.  Congress would curtail spending, cut certain gimme programs, cut certain feel-good programs down, in order to curtail increasing deficits.

There can be decisions made to stop the madness.  Nov 2's elections are a start.  We don't just have to accept what has occurred till now... from both parties.  Times and attitudes must change.

California?  We should not bail them out.  They are what they have made.  They are what they have chosen to be even during this election.  They have chosen to elect a union-man who started California down its road of ruin during his last term in office.

I say let them fend for themselves.  Along with New York.  The rest of the US doesn't want to increase our debt just for their careless and excessive wanton spending.

#7 xuinkrbin. 04-Nov-2010

The government does spend money on things to which I object, yes.  Fortunately for Me, My Representative and Senators tend to do a good job at making sure that spending remains as close to 0 as They can make it.  I have to remember I am not the only People for Whom They speak and They have to balance My interests with those of the Others They represent.

The biggest thing Democrats have going for the deficit spending is the roughly 80 years of economics which says, "When private consumption falls, the government should step in to pick up the slack until the economy stabilizes".  Keynes gave government a great excuse to spend at moments like now.  The argument, taken a step further, says "The fastest way to reduce unemployment is for the government to hire People directly".  It's an argument which the Unemployed like because They have a better shot at obtaining a job, the Employed like because it helps Them to think They are helping the Unemployed, and the Politicians like because it tends to increase Their popularity when unemployment comes down.

Now, if CA or NY were to file for bankruptcy ... well, the NY bit would surprise Me because I thought NY had an okay economy going.  But just looking at CA, if They filed for bankruptcy, I don't know what the economic science says on such a bankruptcy where the state has an economy over 1/8 of the entire US.  My first reaction is to think the results might not be good.  But, I agree, any money transfered should not just be a 'give away'; if any money is sent to CA to prop it up, it should be a loan with an applicable interest rate to cover Taxpayer risk.

#8 captainfish 04-Nov-2010

You are in favor of Keynesian economics?  How well has that worked out?  Anywhere?  Anytime?  Has it worked out for us over the last few years? 

No, we are in a deeper hole.

It's like Socialism.  Evertime, every where it has been tried, it has failed miserably with the cost of millions of lives and lost freedoms.

We don't need Keynesian socialistic policies.  We need to reduce government spending, get out of business' hair, reduce tax and regulatory burden and all that will Create economic recovery and job creation.

Worked in the 20's.  Worked in the 80's.  Worked in the 50's.  We will see in the 10's.

#9 xuinkrbin. 04-Nov-2010

Actually, once FDR actually spent the amount of money Keynes suggested, the economy grew quite well.  The idea of government spending is what constitutes a 'stimulus package'.  Many People like to remember the Reagan growth era and His cutting of the marginal tax rates but He also increased spending greatly.  Clinton raised taxes and the regulatory burden while increasing spending greatly as well.  Both Presidents are remembered for, among other things, long economic booms.

Before discussing "socialism" and "socialistic policies", I must ask how are We defining the terms?  I would think "socialist policies" are policies in support of "socialism" but with the term "socialism" being used in an undefined manner, I have a hard time picturing what You are describing.  Now, the dictionary I have here, New Oxford American, defines "socialism" as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."  Going by that definition, the horse farm down the street from where I work is a socialistic operation because approximately half a dozen families operate it for Their mututal benefit.  I just want to make sure We are working with the same definition.

#10 captainfish 06-Nov-2010

When you are talking community based socialism then that is their choice and they band together to help each other, support each other, and protect each other.

When you are talking about government-based Socialism, that is a form of control forced upon the populace by a powerful few.  It seeks to disperse wealth based upon their set of ideals and biases.  The government seeks to punish those who do well and depress those who are forced to depend on the state for support.  The government does not support everyone - only a few at the behest of the many - mainly themselves.  When the people become too ornery, they eliminate the problem (see russia and china and cuba).

Actually, by the time FDR spent all that money, the rest of the world had recovered already and the US was still trying to climb out, and then had to struggle to pay off that debt it had incurred.  How do you propose we pay off our current $13 Trillion debt, especially with a current 9.6% unemployment rate and a true unemployment rate near 20%?

Presidents can't do anything.  The budgetary power is with Congress.  The presidents can veto or approve of what the Congress passes.  Reagan had his benefit by greatly cutting taxes to increase the taxes coming in to IRS.  When Congress learned of that, they went on a massive spending spree that Reagan acquiesced to in order to keep his tax breaks on the books.

Clinton?  OMG. seriously?  IT was the Republicans in Congress that created the climate for the extensive growth we saw during the late 90's.  Clinton signed on because he wanted to be re-elected by the Center.  And then yet again, Congress got greedy and started ramping up spending when they saw the monies coming in.  Instead of paying off their debt and limiting spending, they (repubs and dems) ramped up earmarks and subsidies.

Keynes is an idiot and those policies while looking good on paper never work in real life.  Letting people do what they need to is always the best medicine.  Getting the gov't out of people's lives is always the key to America's successes.

Powered by Snarf ยท Contact Us