| Author | Message | ||
     paul vizzone Citizen Username: Bmx Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2005  |
President Bush's budget for the next fiscal year comes out today. It will include spending cuts in 150 programs. (mostly those cuts will be reductions in the rate of increases) Democrats of MOL, if you are so concerned about the deficit what actions would you take to reduce the deficit. Of course you will suggest raising taxes. Outside of increasing taxes there must be some other actions. What are they? | ||
| Sgt. Pepper Citizen Username: Jjkatz Post Number: 637 Registered: 12-2003  |
How about not pouring billions into unwarranted wars of choice? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3099 Registered: 8-2003 |
So to take that seriously, Sgt. Pepper wants to stop all funding immediately for any further activity in Iraq. Is that what you're advocating? I doubt it. Anyone else want to take a stab at what to cut spending on? I've got an idea. End all farm subsidies, or at the very least the subsidies that flow to huge corporate enterprises and keep them for the antique family farmer. The problem with that is if Bush does it, then Democrats will howl and assure farmers that if they had been in power, they'd continue the gravy train in a bid to get some action from the Red States. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2012 Registered: 5-2001  |
I was glad to learn yesterday that Bush is finally pushing some reductions in farm subsidies. That is long overdue, and it's a surprising change from W. Limiting subsidies is something other Republicans have been interested in for a while, but they were stymied when W signed the 2002 farm bill which increased subsidies. I'm glad someone or something influenced him to change his mind. | ||
| Wendyn Supporter Username: Wendyn Post Number: 1328 Registered: 9-2002 |
Why should only Dems have concerns over the cuts? Do Repubs have no interest in anything but keeping taxes low? Can you please name all 150 programs on which spending cuts will be incurred and let us know whether you agree with each one? If you don't agree, can you find another program to cut? How about eliminating payment of "journalists" to increase recognition and approval for administration programs? Or eliminating the use of government transportation for personal functions (including fundraising and campaigning)? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3101 Registered: 8-2003 |
Those increased farm subsidies were right up there with steel tariffs as blatantly political moves. Campaign Finance Reform was even worse because it didn't help Bush one lick. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 1421 Registered: 12-2001 |
Raise taxes. Cut agricultural subsidies substantially. Cut new weapons research on mssile defense. Cut NASA deeply (mission to Mars?) Don't borrow trillions to transition to private savings accounts. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5373 Registered: 1-2003  |
Actually, pulling out of the war won't help the budget, because GUESS WHAT?! The war isn't in the budget! They're "carrying it off budget" which is code for "we are closing our eyes to what the real budget is." I heard this on NPR this morning. Despicable, if true. Imagine if I ran my household budget that way. I'd balance it, and then I'd buy some things I can't afford, but the balance sheet would still look fine. But in this case, my budget would be in the red, and I'd put it in red further with my "off budget" items. Are there really grownups who cook this stuff up? My teenagers have better grips on reality than that. | ||
| Sgt. Pepper Citizen Username: Jjkatz Post Number: 640 Registered: 12-2003 |
CJC, my point was that the budget might not be in the state it's in if we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place. But at least we've secured all those WMDs. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 1422 Registered: 12-2001 |
The thing is, turning in balanced budgets is something you are supposed to at least aim for, "trifecta" or no "trifecta". To say "see, you democrats can't balance the budget either, given the lower tax levels we've established, therefore you can't complain" is so childish and unproductive that it is just depressing to hear. Bush's cuts will not pass. Do you think he's really going to succeed in cutting ag subsidies to all those "small government" southerners who love him? Think their local representatives will support that? It would be good for the world's poor if they could compete with our subsidized cotton, etc, too, but it won't happen. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1246 Registered: 9-2001  |
Tom, as usual you have asked the question no one wants to talk about. The same thing happened with the Viet Nam war. As I recall, that is also about the Dems got the brainstorm to start counting the SSI surplus against the deficit. This time, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are included, and they are talking about privatization of SSI. Bush putting farm subsidies on the table was brilliant. He's gotta know that Congress will not gore that ox--neither Dems nor Reps want to take on the Southern Factory Farmers. So, Bush gets credit for being tough on the budget, then blames Congress for the deficit. Meanwhile, the cuts for poverty programs will stick, at least in some form, because their special interests are not strong these days and the Dems are in the minority. Brilliant second term politics. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3327 Registered: 5-2001  |
What's really sad is that we really need those ag cuts (cjc, why should dems howl when it's bush's 'heartland folks' that have been benefittin from this huge gov. dole?) But since bush raised the dole in 2002, any cut will only take it back to what it was, but bush will be able to say "look how tough I am" like Furman said above. In the end, we all lose. which sucks. for us. except big money sucking agri biz. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2013 Registered: 5-2001 |
Another suggestion: major reductions to subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there might be some slight increases in energy costs, but it would affect the wealthy much more than the poor, and the money could go toward restoring programs such as after-school mentoring and job training programs that have been dropped as a result of our currently being strapped. Also, it would promote development of renewable energy infrastructure and help us wean ourselves away from reliance on petroleum from the Middle East. I'd call that a win-win. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3328 Registered: 5-2001 |
of course that makes sense, but wanna bet that big oil won't be touched? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5379 Registered: 1-2003 |
The oil industry gets government subsidies!? | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5191 Registered: 4-1998  |
Cut the Pentagon and CIA budgets in HALF. (They only gather bad intelligence and launch wars against bad guys who get replaced by other bad guys in a vicious cycle of stupidity and arrogance.) Use the dividend to pay for ALL public education. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13126 Registered: 10-2001  |
Now that makes alot of sense. Cut intelligence and defense funding right now. Why don't we open the borders while we're at it. | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5192 Registered: 4-1998 |
If we had intelligence I'd opt to keep it. The borders are fairly open as it is. Ask the bus person during your next nyc dining experience. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5380 Registered: 1-2003 |
Hey, if you're not serious about making sacrifices, you're not serious about fixing the budget. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1048 Registered: 8-2003  |
Question - Why is it generally assumed that every item in the federal budget contains a significant amount of waste, fraud, and abuse (WAFAB), except Defense, whose budget is now, always has been, and always will be, untouchable? |
