OK Elk,, I don't care who we start with,, they are all to blame,, shootin them would be better if we could get away with ath kind of stuff,, hey,, 200 years ago you maybe could,, I bet our forefathers are spining in their spirits,, sad, sad, sad
It seems to me a simple solution is to cut *every* program, without exception, the exact same percentage cut - a number equal to exactly that needed to balance the budget.
No favorites. No restructuring. Just force everybody to make do with their adjusted amount...
and boost the food-stamp program for poverty-stricken at the same time, so they are not so affected.
I suspect that an approach like this would keep the cut minimal - a few percent sacrifice for all would save our country. IMHO
The way to win is by not being greedy. (just like stocks)
Your proposal is basically what is now called the "fiscal cliff" which is a law "in waiting" passed by Congress near the end of 2011, after the hardcore Republican, and Republican Tea Party House of Representatives Congressmen refused in the summer of 2011 to vote for the increase in the Federal Government debt ceiling threatening the US Government to default in its debt, and obligations payments, as the US debt that was coming due will not be able to be "rolled over" with the debt ceiling frozen. Finally at the end of the summer of 2011, the hardcore Republican Tea Party House Congressmen agreed to vote for a debt ceiling increase (as they were probably convinced by the moderate Republicans that the Republicans would soon win the elections the next year, and they should not screw up the nation with the election coming) with the condition that a bi-partisan committee come up with an even and automatic budget cutting plan (which is not called the fiscal cliff) that will be voted into law to become effective, if by the end of 2012 no replacement law is created by both houses of Congress to balance the federal budget. In this even handed budget cutting law in waiting, both defense and social programs will be cut equally with possible additional tax revenue increases. As an aside, the Bush tax cut program is an interim program, that will expire at the end of 2012. (Actually, the Bush tax cut interim program was due to expire about two years ago, but the Republicans forced the President and the Democrats in Congress to extend the Bush tax cut program to the end of 2012, after the Republicans threatened to not extend the period of unemployment payments, which was needed as after the 2008 Great Recession, millions of workers cannot find jobs for longer periods than normal after being layoff. Many Democrats at that time asked the President not to extend the Bush tax cut program, but the President wanted to help out the millions of the workers who cannot find jobs for extended periods during the Great Recession. After the hardcore Republicans tried for a debt ceiling freeze in 2011, it became very serious to eliminate any budget deficits to prevent any chance of the US government going into default as a result of any debt ceiling freeze. To eliminate any budget budget deficits, as the hardcore Republicans demand, it is necessary to cut defense, social programs, as well as raise tax revenues. The current budget deficit is huge in this near depression economic environment. It will take cuts in both defense and social programs is save enough money, and these cuts probably is not enough in view of the size of the deficits, and big cuts will probably depress the economy further resulting in less tax revenues, unless the tax rates are increased, and unless the Bush tax-cuts program is allowed to expire. The Republicans claim that only social programs need to be cut to eliminate the budget deficit, while still allow the defense budget to grow strongly, and while keeping the Bush tax cuts program, and while not increasing tax rates on the rich, or even lowering the tax rates on the rich. It appears that the Republicans are ignoring simple arithmetics as usually. Not only that, the so call majority leaders of the houses of Congress are not true leaders, in that the hardcore Republican/Libertarian/Tea Party members of Congress do not follow the so call House and Senate Republican leaders. Any proposals put forth by the House Majority Leader is practically worthless, as the hardcore Republican/Libertarian/Tea Party House Congressmen would be unlikely to abide by these worthless proposals (unless these are voted into law.) These Republican proposals are like old "Bait-and-Switch" verbal deals of crooked business people.
Re: "Elk, you don't get out much do ya to observe,, not everything is on paper,, C"
Yes, craig, not everything is on paper but you seem inclined to avoid some of the most relevant things that are on paper. As for getting out to observe, I have waded through a fairly wide swathe of the socio-economic and geographic landscape of our planet and, I would venture to say, most likely more than you have.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
One of the business sales tactics is the old "bait and switch" like when the car salesman offering a great deal, and then switch to his sales manager who said the deal was made in mistake. Here we have Republican Bohmner offering a deal (which is not that good) and later the Republicans will switch to Cantor with the debt ceiling freeze. Bait and switch.
The Full McConnell
December 2, 2012, Paul Krugman, NY Times
In his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mitch McConnell finally mentioned a few sort-of specifics about what spending cuts the GOP wants: raising the Medicare age, charging higher premiums to affluent Medicare recipients, and changing the price indexing of Social Security. But how much does all this amount to?
I’ve already noted that the CBO has estimated the fiscal savings from raising the Medicare age at $113 billion over the next decade. A study of health care options (pdf) from a few years ago put the savings from expanded premiums at $20 billion (Option 91) – that number would be somewhat higher now, but still small.
I haven’t found a 10-year estimate of the Social Security indexing idea, but we can roll our own. The idea is to replace the CPI with a “chained” measure that typically rises about 0.3 percentage points less per year. Apply this to the CBO projections of Social Security spending under current policy and I get 10-year savings of $186 billion.
So, if we take all of McConnell’s ideas together, we get a bit more than $300 billion. Getting this would, by the way, impose substantial hardship – seniors would be forced into inferior private insurance, and there are good reasons to believe that the true inflation rate facing seniors is actually higher, not lower, than the CPI. Still, what we’re looking at overall is a saving equal to only about one-fifth of what Obama is proposing to raise by higher taxes.
And that’s it; has anyone heard even a peep from the GOP about what else they’d like to cut?
This is pathetic – and these people are definitely not serious.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The automatic cuts (with automatic expiration of the Bush tax-cuts) is better than the government being force into defaulting, if the hardcore Republican/Libertarian/Tea Party House Congressmen like Cantor push for freezing the debt ceiling. If the Republicans force the US government into defaulting on its debt and obligations, there will be huge disruptions to the US and international financial system, as the US dollar is the "reserve" currency of the world with like foreign oil being priced in US dollar terms.
Unless the hardcore Republicans/Libertarians/Tea Party is will to sign into law that they will not attempt to try to freeze, or roll back, the debt ceiling for a few years, until the US economy gets back on its feet, there is a high probability of the threat of them trying to freeze the debt ceiling, while the US economy is still weak, needing liquidity of the government to deal with economic crises.
Any deal proposals from Republicans are loaded with Catch-22's, and these proposals have to be suspected. The Republicans have created the 2008 Great Recession, and the 1929 Great Depression, as they are prone to create outsized financial collapses due to their crazed greed for money, which they the super rich can make tons of money buying up valuables penny on the dollar during depressions and financial turmoils.
Morning S,, I think that the seniors stand to lose the most due to if we go off the cliff then there is automatic cuts in medicare at 27 %,, private docs will not be able to eat that cost, so, unless the older population ponies up the difference, then they will left out,, and forget about medicaid as you cant pass on that cost to them so basically they will not be seen,, terrible,,
Morning C, The bad part is that the US is so big that going into reverse is next to impossible. Nothing you can do about it Craig.
Costs are out of control and the not so rich and weak will suffer. I hate to be negative, but what I see in California on free loaders and their demands is unreal. I am shutting down my generosity more and more.