Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Simpson, Bowles Propose $2.4T Reduction  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1090 times:

Whilst those we elected to perform as legislators do everything in their power to not deal with the deficit, Simpson and Bowles again put out a basic roadmap for meaningful cuts to the defecit:

Quote:

Under the proposal, about one-fourth of the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction would come from healthcare reforms and another fourth from tax reform.

The remaining reduction would come from a combination of mandatory spending cuts, stronger caps on U.S. discretionary spending, using the Consumer Price Index for inflation-indexed provisions in the budget and lower interest payments.

"The proposal also calls for a parallel process to make Social Security sustainably solvent and further actions to bring transportation spending and revenues in line and limit per capita cost growth in federal budgetary commitment to healthcare to about the growth rate of the economy," according to a summary of the plan.

Overall, the plan seeks to keep the nation's debt under 70 percent of gross domestic product in a decade, and to keep lowering that ratio in the years after.

Seems to me something like this should be the baseline, and if anyone wants to change it, they have to bring the equivalent revenue/cut to the table to counter what they want to change.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/bipartisan-com...reduction-143658525--business.html


Inspiration, move me brightly!
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2079 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

Lets assume a conservative estimate of a trillion dollar deficit a year for the next 10 years, they're shaving off less than a quarter of that. Not enough.

I also have no idea how they intend to keep debt under 70% of GDP when it is already 74%. Again assuming a trillion dollar deficit and 2% growth it'll be 78% next year. It is simple maths, when the debt is growing by 10% a year and the economy by 2%, you can't lower debt to GDP.

Just deckchairs on the Titanic; it will be literally impossible to reign in the deficit.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5630 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
Lets assume a conservative estimate of a trillion dollar deficit a year for the next 10 years, they're shaving off less than a quarter of that. Not enough.

They are offering ANOTHER $2.5T in addition to the $2.4T currently being discussed. Half is a damn good start.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Their proposals are always on point. The issue is not always the math its the politics and ideology involved with doing the right thing.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11678 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1044 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
Just deckchairs on the Titanic; it will be literally impossible to reign in the deficit.

The tea people budget proposed by former right-wing VP candidate Paul Ryan would balloon the deficit.

Problem with Simpson-Bowles is: it is bi-partisan. Oh, the horror!! No right-wing tea person candidate would ever submit to bipartisan!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10049 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 3):
Their proposals are always on point. The issue is not always the math its the politics and ideology involved with doing the right thing.

Politics has nothing to do with doing the right thing.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5630 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5):
Politics has nothing to do with doing the right thing.

Unfortunately it often has something to do with just DOING most anything....

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineaflyingkiwi From New Zealand, joined Nov 2010, 515 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1016 times:

It's a shame that the politicians can't just swallow their pride & accept that this bipartisan plan is what's needed.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
Problem with Simpson-Bowles is: it is bi-partisan. Oh, the horror!! No right-wing tea person candidate would ever submit to bipartisan!

To be fair many on the left are being too precious over spending cuts on entitlements.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11678 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1008 times:

Quoting aflyingkiwi (Reply 7):
To be fair many on the left are being too precious over spending cuts on entitlements.

There are spending cuts that should be made on programs that we pay into (read:entitlements) but there is much more fraud, waste, and abuse in military budgets.

If we were really serious about "entitlements" we, the TAXPAYER, would stop this insane idea that elected officials can give themselves raises and retirement packages. Take back their ENTITLEMENTS!! How much would that save? Limit the travel expense account, take away the life time health care and pay. How much would that save? And make it retroactive! Just the way the right wants with slave wage workers. Make people like McCain, Kerry, et al. give it all up. The way Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison concieved. These right-wingers want to privatize everything so they can raid the retirement funds. Let's raid their retirement and entitlement funds they never paid into. We, the taxpayers, paid into Medicare and Social Security. Congress did not pay into their retirement funds they vote themselves. Let's go after that first.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5591 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 990 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
Just the way the right wants with slave wage workers.

As long as people are more interested in finger-pointing and rhetoric, there will never be a consensus on how to move forward. Eventually, perhaps in our darkest hour, those from all sides of the equation will get past this and work things out, though probably too late to really make a difference. In the meantime, we get soundbites and name-calling. Yes, that will solve a lot.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2079 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 984 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
The tea people budget proposed by former right-wing VP candidate Paul Ryan would balloon the deficit.

Hence why I said impossible... Tax increases have to happen, along with simplification of the tax code which in itself would save billions, the military industrial complex has to be reined in and farm subsidies (and other farm protections) have to end. That right there is the holy trinity of tyranny to many a righty.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
elected officials can give themselves raises and retirement packages.

Isn't US law that Congress only gets a raise when federal employees do? According to Obama who harps on about 'police officers, teachers, firefighters..' being cut if sequestration happens, you surely don't want to limit the payrises of teachers do you?!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6692 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 940 times:

Why is it always 10 years that are discussed and not this year and next year deficit ? I feel talking about an objective in 10 years time doesn't engage people at all, it's like "we have all the time in the world, no hurry". How many billions have already been lost discussing this ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 404 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 913 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
I also have no idea how they intend to keep debt under 70% of GDP when it is already 74%. Again assuming a trillion dollar deficit and 2% growth it'll be 78% next year. It is simple maths, when the debt is growing by 10% a year and the economy by 2%, you can't lower debt to GDP.

You can when our debt is financed at a rate lower than inflation. Our government can borrow money at a negative interest rate when you consider inflation. This is why our focus should not be on reducing our deficit, but rebuilding the infrastructure of this country while we can do it so cheaply. This is such a huge missed opportunity. Plus, assuming GDP growth will only be 2% a year for the next 10 years is very pessimistic when you consider 2010 was 3%, 2011 was 1.7% and 2012 was around 2.6%.

Our debt shouldn't be the top priority in this country, the economy should be.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 902 times:

As a conservative, I must say I am sick of all the partisan BS. Get something done. Cut defense, do something with entitlements and close loopholes. It's like we are sending people to D.C to play a game of "Whose is Bigger". S and B seem to be old timers with experience. There are for too many rash law makers on both sides of the line. Hopefully they can knock some sense into everyone. Obama, Boehner and company make me sick with their partisan bullshit. Perhaps this rant has made me come off as moderate - whatever - Im sick of Obama surrounding himself with school children and first responders at every speech, playing to the emotions of the country, and I'm sick of Boehner looking like he is going to puke at the sound of Obama's voice.

Our country has never been so partisan, and I find myself sick of it!

/rant



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11678 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 891 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 10):
Isn't US law that Congress only gets a raise when federal employees do?

No. Their pay is not linked to inflation, like those on Social Security or teachers or first responders.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 10):
Obama who harps on about 'police officers, teachers, firefighters..' being cut if sequestration happens, you surely don't want to limit the payrises of teachers do you?!

That's another thing: hard core right-wingers want to privatize everything. If they get their way, police would only respond to those who pay them. And, the police would only be paid $10 an hour or less with no benefits. If they get shot on the job, they would pay for their own care out of their pocket. Teachers would teach what they are told to and be paid minimum wage and buy supplies with their own money. Privatizing everything would save money in the short term, but, long run would cost us all trillions more.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6692 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 889 times:

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 12):
You can when our debt is financed at a rate lower than inflation. Our government can borrow money at a negative interest rate when you consider inflation.

This is artificial and only happening because investors keep some confidence in the US. If nothing is done to curtain the deficit, confidence will be lost and the rates will skyrocket.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 885 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
Take back their ENTITLEMENTS!!

I think this is something most people can agree on... but sadly, it's also something our politicians have a consensus on (in disagreement.) They make the laws, they aren't gonna screw themselves

Ron Paul, love him or hate him, people do have to give it to him, he was all about cutting politician's wages. I do hear arguments against corruption (by keeping wages high) but I think it's safe to say most of the resistance has nothing to do with curtailing corruption



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 882 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
Lets assume a conservative estimate of a trillion dollar deficit a year for the next 10 years, they're shaving off less than a quarter of that. Not enough.

Yes, but the "government industry" is a hell of a powerful lobby. Medicare, Medicaid, Pentagon... it's mostly businessmen. We have this idea we must fund every single Pentagon and Medicare initiative. So, surprise!! Profit seeking "government industry" players have gravitated to those areas. They want MONEY. They are getting it.

We're all equals. Except some of us tax others at the point of a gun. Otherwise, yeah totally equal. And stuff.

Ross Perot's giant sucking sound is still getting louder.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 872 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 1):
I also have no idea how they intend to keep debt under 70% of GDP when it is already 74%.

The biggest target for cuts has to be Defense. We simply don't need the Two Wars Budget of the Bush/Cheney Years.

We also ned to look at the reality of the Guns & Butter Economy under Bush/Cheney (plus the Tax Cuts) and how they hit our long term deficit. There needs to be changes at the top brackets to help bring down that glorious government handout to the wealthy. Maybe change that 300+ tax return to a 200+ page tax return.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
Make people like McCain, Kerry, et al. give it all up.

Don't know about McCain or Kerry, but I recall that Ted Kennedy declined his Senate salary. I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry has also

Quoting Aesma (Reply 11):
Why is it always 10 years that are discussed and not this year and next year deficit ?

Ten years was established because it's recognized that many spending programs have to wind down. The Defense is a good example. They are half way through this year and have contractual commitments for a chunk of the balance of the year. Hitting them with a cut now means that their cuts need to me focused on personnel, training and maintenance.

That is far easier than stopping production of a warship that is 80% complete. Try that and see the automatic payments that kick in, starting with rent of the dry dock, unemployment benefits, etc. You can be sure that defense contractors have included plump payments for contract cancellations that are not their fault.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
Ron Paul, love him or hate him, people do have to give it to him, he was all about cutting politician's wages.

He loves that idea? Guess he was rich enough not to need the pay. But for some politicians who do not go to Washington with great wealth their pay has to cover both their DC accommodation as well as their expenses at home. Guess Paul believe that national politics should only be for the rich.


Simpson and Bowles can come up with a lot of good ides, but they take a pretty casual attitude towards entitlements. No problem shrinking Social Security, but they won't touch private retirement accounts at the same time. Same with health care - Medicare & medicaid would take hits, but not the tax free ride of employer nanny care.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 859 times:

Since "cutting defense" has such a wide variety of possibilities, could someone explain to me where liberals would ideally like to see most money cut from the defense budget?


So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5630 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 851 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 19):
Since "cutting defense" has such a wide variety of possibilities, could someone explain to me where liberals would ideally like to see most money cut from the defense budget?

Why only liberals? How about us that are not "Liberal" that also want to see cuts in the defense budgets? I for one would start with military pensions and pay raises that are always increased by a percent or two over what is requested by the service commanders just for political show. I would also increase the contribution from the retiree for TriCare increased to what has been recommended by people like Gates etc.

Now as for specific Programs that could be cut, that is a whole other ball of wax but there are quite few that could be reduced or eliminated. For one how about we start with the C-17 program that the military has been saying for years that they do not need anymore of? Great plane but the need is sated, stop forcing the military to buy them. Or how about the M1A1 MBT? The Army doesn't need anymore, they have over two thousand sitting in the desert holding yards and about as many deployed, but the congress is not willing it shut down the build. There are many examples of the "jobs programs" that the military is not wanting or needing but that keep being funded. I would start there.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2800 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 848 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
Problem with Simpson-Bowles is: it is bi-partisan. Oh, the horror!! No right-wing tea person candidate would ever submit to bipartisan!

Please, the left is just as partisan as the right.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
If we were really serious about "entitlements" we, the TAXPAYER, would stop this insane idea that elected officials can give themselves raises and retirement packages. Take back their ENTITLEMENTS!!

I don't think the taxpayers expects any of this. The problem is these knuckleheads we elect do it anyways. I read a story last week about how Pelosi thinks she should earn more money because it's a prestigious job. So clearly it is a left and right issue.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 13):
Our country has never been so partisan, and I find myself sick of it!

Couldn't agree more. The partisonship has pushed me to the middle more and more everyday. I just want something to get done.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
That's another thing: hard core right-wingers want to privatize everything. If they get their way, police would only respond to those who pay them. And, the police would only be paid $10 an hour or less with no benefits. If they get shot on the job, they would pay for their own care out of their pocket. Teachers would teach what they are told to and be paid minimum wage and buy supplies with their own money. Privatizing everything would save money in the short term, but, long run would cost us all trillions more.

I can't think of a single time I have ever heard a "right winger" ever want to privatise the police force. You're going a little extreme on that. With the exception of extreme Libertarians I can't even think of anybody who would propose that. Not many are proposing privatizing the school system either. Wasn't Bush wanting to be the Education president? Obviously he didn't do a great job, but I don't ever remember hearing ,the ultimate enemy of the left, proposing privatizing the whole school system. The private school system is hurting right now. As a recent graduate of a private school I can tell you many in my area might not be around when it comes to my 10 year anniversary. So obviously privatization doesn't work there.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
We also ned to look at the reality of the Guns & Butter Economy under Bush/Cheney (plus the Tax Cuts) and how they hit our long term deficit. There needs to be changes at the top brackets to help bring down that glorious government handout to the wealthy.

Enough of Bush and Cheney, seriously. We keep hearing the sky is falling and it's Bush's fault! President Obama has been in office for over 4 years now. The problems put on him to fix when he took office in 2009 are now his responsibility. If he can't fix it than he needs to surround himself with people that can. The fight to tax the wealthy is crazy IMO. I understand paying your fair share but it is tough to say you aren't paying enough in taxes when the top 10% pay what such a huge portion of the taxes in this country. What we need to do is tidy up the welfare on the bottom half so it is tougher to get and only used in extreme cases and raise the taxes on everyone. Not everyone was gifted wealth by their parents, contrary to popular belief. We shouldn't punish those who have been successful just because they work their tails off.

I hope if this plan doesn't work we can do something else to really fix this problem. We keep talking about the dire need to fix the debt but I have yet to see anything done to actually fix it. Americans seem to have this thought that it will all be fine just give it time. Well unfortunately this isn't a paper cut, it's a knife wound, and if we don't fix it we are going to be in trouble quick, fast, and in a hurry. We may not be up to debt levels that Greece or Spain have experienced, but if we keep going with this careless spending we will be there.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12597 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 847 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 21):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
Problem with Simpson-Bowles is: it is bi-partisan. Oh, the horror!! No right-wing tea person candidate would ever submit to bipartisan!

Please, the left is just as partisan as the right.

Indeed, and the main issue is that no one seems to think they need to compromise with the other as a part of their job description.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 843 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Why only liberals? How about us that are not "Liberal" that also want to see cuts in the defense budgets?

For what its worth, as I stated in my first post in the thread, I am for defense cuts as well. Only recently have I opened up to the idea, therefor I am still deciding my opinion as to where I'd like to see them. The liberal part came in because I'd assume conservatives and liberals would have different opinions as to what needs to be trimmed.

On a different note, how are the branches doing on fighters? How many F-22s are in the various branches, and how many are on order (dont know the ins and outs of military aircraft acquisitions, so maybe someone could enlighten me) Is the F-35 even necessary? Is a lot of money being pumped into the program?

Honestly, if the sequester is supposed to hit March 1st, I do not see anything getting done in time, not with the partisanship of the current administration and congress. The sequester contains broad sweeping cuts to things republicans hold dear and things which democrats hold dear. It's my understanding that S and B are trying to use a scalpel as opposed to an axe (sequester)



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 837 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
That's another thing: hard core right-wingers want to privatize everything. If they get their way, police would only respond to those who pay them.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
Just the way the right wants with slave wage workers.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
These right-wingers want to privatize everything so they can raid the retirement funds.

Please, spare the forum your drama! Does it never get old attacking the opposite party? Please provide evidence of any person with an (R) behind their name saying they want a private police force, want slavery or want to privatize everything



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 845 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The biggest target for cuts has to be Defense. We simply don't need the Two Wars Budget of the Bush/Cheney Years.

And yet the US spends more on healthcare and pensions. Are you willing to cut those programs if defense is also cut? If your answer is no, why not?



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5630 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 847 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 21):
The fight to tax the wealthy is crazy IMO. I understand paying your fair share but it is tough to say you aren't paying enough in taxes when the top 10% pay what such a huge portion of the taxes in this country. What we need to do is tidy up the welfare on the bottom half so it is tougher to get and only used in extreme cases and raise the taxes on everyone. Not everyone was gifted wealth by their parents, contrary to popular belief. We shouldn't punish those who have been successful just because they work their tails off.
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
On a different note, how are the branches doing on fighters? How many F-22s are in the various branches, and how many are on order (dont know the ins and outs of military aircraft acquisitions, so maybe someone could enlighten me) Is the F-35 even necessary? Is a lot of money being pumped into the program?

Only the Air Force has the F-22 and they have about 180 and production has ended. No FAS are planned for it at this time due to the nature of its technology and the unwillingness to share that with other nations and potentially lose control of the technology.

As to the F-35, it will get built but it is phenomenally expensive now and only getting worse for a combination of reasons one of which is decreasing numbers planned. It is probably too needed by too many services now to not get built in some numbers but it could end up getting cut early due to its high cost. It just tries to do too much, its a neat idea but has been implemented badly (if you are going to build a "cheap" basic fighter then build one, if you need a F/B then build that, if you need a CAS plane then build that.) The actual basic aircraft is excellent, it is that they are trying to stuff all the capabilities of each into the others and do it all and certify it all at the beginning rather than just building the thing and developing its capabilities grow as it's abilities were discovered.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 855 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 19):
could someone explain to me where liberals would ideally like to see most money cut from the defense budget?

I'm a moderate (though some might argue with that) and the first place I would look to for cuts would be those area that were increased for the two wars we have been fighting for 10 years. We built up Defense spending (on the credit card, no less) and we don't need to continue with those programs.

Maybe we should return to force levels that General Colin Powell & President Clinton worked out, and make some adjustments from there - not from the current levels.

We also need to look at capital asset purchases. USAF Tankers, warships, etc. Big dollar purchases for hardware that will last a generation. Might look at spreading out the delivery times as long as we can retain the infrastructure needed to produce those assets.

We need to look at Personnel, but with some care. We have overuse and abused a lot of our military personnel through too aggressive a deployment cycle, with too little time at home to rebuild, re-establish family structures and retrain for the next deployment. The previous Administration also used forced retention of troops at the end of their active duty commitment as a way of avoiding a return to the draft. Maybe we need to be honest and admit that the Draft in the future is one way of reducing troop levels today.

We also need to be honest when we look at the need to move some funds from Defense to the VA. The two wars started in the Bush/Cheney Years will require funding of Veterans benefits for the next half century.

We also can cut out a lot of "outsourcing" of our military. Bloody stupid to pay outside companies to provide traditional services in the military. Start with cooks and other supply personnel. Rummy made have made a lot of arguments for giving Cheney's company a lot of government contracts related to the military, but both of those duds are (fortunately) gone. We can return to a more traditional military now.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6618 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 827 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17):
Yes, but the "government industry" is a hell of a powerful lobby. Medicare, Medicaid, Pentagon... it's mostly businessmen

Created largely by "conservatives" who claimed that outsourcing all government activities to private industry would "save money" and make government more efficient. Now, all those private companies are hooked and very powerful as you say. Plus, many of them have your congressmen bought and paid for making cuts even harder.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 404 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 822 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
This is artificial and only happening because investors keep some confidence in the US. If nothing is done to curtain the deficit, confidence will be lost and the rates will skyrocket.

Like Japan? Debt-to-gdp of over 200% yet still able to borrow money for next to nothing. There is still no safer investment than US treasuries. If confidence is lost on the dollar, then it is lost everywhere else even moreso. Which is why when the US economy tanked, money was flowing into US treasuries.

[Edited 2013-02-20 11:04:05]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 808 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Why only liberals? How about us that are not "Liberal" that also want to see cuts in the defense budgets?

I'm considered conservative by some, I have a lot in me, I'm in the military, and I'm all for defense cuts. They need to be done correctly, of course, but I think we could cut a lot and still be the best military out there (though part of my vision would be for a more defensive force rather than offensive, world police like force)

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
I for one would start with military pensions and pay raises that are always increased by a percent or two over what is requested by the service commanders just for political show.

I'd be careful here... I could see the higher ranks taking a hit but your lower guys make a surprisingly low wage for some of the stuff they do. I don't think anything should be a sacred cow, but I think there are a million other areas you could hit before going for pay and retirement, and it definitely wouldn't be my starting point

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
The Army doesn't need anymore, they have over two thousand sitting in the desert holding yards and about as many deployed, but the congress is not willing it shut down the build.

I don't claim to be a logistics expert, but some of the equipment I've just seen lying around makes me wonder. You have yards full of "stuff." Stuff that hasn't been touched for forever. You also have yards full of trucks and other vehicles all over the place. I mean maybe it was cheaper in the long run to get them in bulk, maybe they actually do get used, maybe the accountant added a 0 at the end of the order, who knows, but I know blatant waste is out there

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
How many F-22s are in the various branches, and how many are on order (dont know the ins and outs of military aircraft acquisitions, so maybe someone could enlighten me)

Only the USAF has them, good airplane minus the OBOGS (?) issue it's having

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
Is the F-35 even necessary? Is a lot of money being pumped into the program?

I heard that program is soaking up money, is way delayed, and is having problems. I heard of a guy that got selected to be one of the first F-35 pilots years ago and has yet to touch the plane... poor guy. I think the concept of a similar plane is good in theory, but I'm not so sure it's being executed so well...

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
We also can cut out a lot of "outsourcing" of our military. Bloody stupid to pay outside companies to provide traditional services in the military.

Part of that is the fact that these forces can operate outside of some of the ROE the military has... it gets kinda shady, but yes, I believe some private contracting has gone too far


A quick example I can think of now of military waste is Airborne school and units. Having it these days is questionable, since IIRC, only a few combat jumps have happened in OIF/OEF (and I think they were done just to do them, not sure.) But you have whole units that are airborne that'll never ever ever jump in combat. You have members in airborne units that only do paperwork that are on jump status that will never jump even if their unit does. You have ROTC cadets going to Airborne school. And maybe we need a few units that can be ready to go and jump... keep those few units on jump status. Everyone else, if needed, can be trained in a couple months anyway. Air Assault seems to be the future anyway, not Airborne



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 794 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 28):
Created largely by "conservatives" who claimed that outsourcing all government activities to private industry would "save money" and make government more efficient. Now, all those private companies are hooked and very powerful as you say. Plus, many of them have your congressmen bought and paid for making cuts even harder.

They just need to be prodded.

I'd be for a balanced budget nuke. Each time the budget is balanced, the nuclear warhead does not destroy Washington. Each time they fail to balance it, uh-oh.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 748 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 25):
And yet the US spends more on healthcare and pensions.

The total health care costs in the US is higher than it needs to be because of the overpriced payment structure we use. We also fail to receive the best outcomes possible, except in breast cancer in women. Poor bang for the buck.

In terms of pensions, Social Security is not broke. We have funds available for years, but Wall Street wants that money, causing politicians to talk about cutting it.

Considering that both Medicare and Social Security are programs that taxpayers actually fund I think we need to look at means of building those programs up, not tearing them down.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 25):
Are you willing to cut those programs if defense is also cut?

As I noted before, first let's stop the tax free ride of employer nanny care. That would make a huge difference in health care costs in this country.

Same with the income tax free ride in private pension programs.

You want ti cut programs that we have paid for so you can have those free rides?

Hard for me to justify.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 738 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Considering that both Medicare and Social Security are programs that taxpayers actually fund I think we need to look at means of building those programs up, not tearing them down.

So you are in favor of a larger welfare state?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
In terms of pensions, Social Security is not broke. We have funds available for years, but Wall Street wants that money, causing politicians to talk about cutting it.

So just kick the can down the road and pretend no problem exists? This is the exact same problem happening in D.C currently.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Considering that both Medicare and Social Security are programs that taxpayers actually fund I think we need to look at means of building those programs up, not tearing them down.

And the other side of the isle will point out that providing for the national defense is something the CotUS specifically gives control to the Federal Government.

Spending IS the problem. Not just on defense, not just on pensions, not just on medicare. On a multitude of things. Trying to gain bi-partisan support, not only in D.C, but throughout the entire country is like pulling teeth. Throughout the nation "compromise" has become a dirty word, and I'm sick of it.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 737 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 28):
Plus, many of them have your congressmen bought and paid for making cuts even harder.

Lets not pretend like the same isn't true for unions.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 707 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 34):
Lets not pretend like the same isn't true for unions.

Doesn't reduce the other problem... Just a sign of how big it is... And then we should add many of the other interests organizations.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 706 times:

Before they cut anything, I want to see the House and Senate go back to being a part time job. They can have a salary, but no benefits. Career politicians are killing this country. Next I want to see real budget reform. None of this paper accounting nonsense. Enough is enough.

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 687 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 33):
So you are in favor of a larger welfare state?

I don't consider Medicare to be welfare. Not only did I pay during my working life to help fund the program, but I pay month for the various parts of Medicare as well as a private gap policy. Hasn't been a free ride for me, but is far better than the overpriced private health insurance we had before retiring.

BTW, that tax free ride of employer nanny care is far less affordable than Medicare. Get rid of that tax free ride, boost Medicare fraud and funding is in better shape. Right now that tax free ride is welfare for those who really don't need it.

THEN learn a few lessons from other countries and get rid of that health insurance albatross off of the backs of employers. Experience of intelligent countries shows some better outcomes with a lower cost.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 33):
So just kick the can down the road and pretend no problem exists?

The right wing panic on Social Security is a joke. There has been excess funding for years, allowing the Treasury to borrow that surplus to build Interstate System roads, aircraft carriers, etc. With the GOP Great Recession we did need to actually spend more than we took in from contributions, BUT these difficult years were still fully covered by using a small part of the annual interest income added to the contributions.

Kicking the can down the road is a cute saying, but it hides the reality that the program is funded and will continue to be funded. It also avoids addressing the income tax free ride of private retirement programs - something that is far more unaffordable than Social Security.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 33):
And the other side of the isle will point out that providing for the national defense is something the CotUS specifically gives control to the Federal Government.

Do you believe that the Founding Fathers were really considering the country invading another country halfway around the world because of mythical weapons that were not even there?

I also don't see anything in the Constitution that provides for government funding of Halliburton and other private companies under "outsourcing". Where is "outsourcing" in the Constitution?

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 33):
Spending IS the problem

Only because we have given away huge tax revenues through loopholes to the wealthy. A 300+ page tax return for a GOP Presidential Candidate is the best example of the cause of our deficit you will ever find.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 667 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):

The definition of the "Welfare State" includes many social policies of a government, and primarily refrences the government involvement of in the social policys of North American and European countries. It is a part of the Welfare State.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
THEN learn a few lessons from other countries

Which countries should we take lessons from?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
Right now that tax free ride is welfare for those who really don't need it

You say you wish to see social programs expanded, presumably ala northern European countries, but those programs include much more of the population, including those who you think "dont really need them".

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
allowing the Treasury to borrow that surplus to build Interstate System roads, aircraft carriers, etc.

Again, spending money that should have only been put toward SS. Spend, spend, spend. We don't need more carries (and probably didn't back then, post war), and give a bit more responsibility for the states to manage their highways.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
Kicking the can down the road is a cute saying

 . It's also cute using China's credit card.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
Kicking the can down the road is a cute saying, but it hides the reality that the program is funded and will continue to be funded.

Funded? Experts believe the program is stable for another 20 years. What then?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
Do you believe that the Founding Fathers

Im sure that the Founders didn't account for someone creating Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and Welfare.

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
Doesn't reduce the other problem... Just a sign of how big it is... And then we should add many of the other interests organizations.

Of course I realize this. I just wish more people would realize both parties have this issue; perhaps if more understood this, people could compromise a bit more. Each party has dirty politicians under the thumbs of interest groups, corporations and unions.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 660 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):

My tax return is 237 pages. I own a business. It goes with the territory. You know what irritates me? People who pay no taxes. Everyone should pay taxes. It is only then that people understand that government and its programs have a cost. There is an entire class of people who have no concept of the cost of government.

I'm sick and tired of people telling people like me that working my butt off to make a living makes me selfish. I'm not the selfish one, they are. They want more of my income so they can have more free stuff at my expense. To think that some of them want to throw around the "what would Jesus do" business? How about trying this one on for size... "thou shalt not covet"

/rant off


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 655 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 33):
Spending IS the problem

Only because we have given away huge tax revenues through loopholes to the wealthy.

No no no... you could tax the wealthy to death and we would still have a spending problem. I'm all for a balanced approach, revenue up and spending down, but I think it needs to be more spending cuts and less revenue up



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Vatican Praises Homer Simpson posted Mon Oct 18 2010 19:35:59 by Quokka
Creative Ways To Propose Marriage? posted Sat Oct 16 2010 06:37:43 by Mudboy
Workforce Reduction Day posted Tue Aug 31 2010 08:43:02 by KINDFlyer
Glenn Beck Compares Tiger Woods To OJ Simpson posted Wed Dec 9 2009 20:30:18 by FuturePilot16
Is Banana Good As Weight Reduction Diet? posted Sat Nov 7 2009 02:21:41 by Saleem
Marge Simpson To Pose For Playboy posted Sat Oct 10 2009 14:44:33 by KiwiRob
Jessica Simpson's Weight posted Wed Jan 28 2009 21:04:08 by Tiger119
OJ Simpson Found Guilty On All Counts. posted Fri Oct 3 2008 22:58:30 by VonRichtofen
Homer Simpson Votes For Obama! Or Does He...? posted Thu Oct 2 2008 16:02:39 by Corinthians
Informal Poll: OJ Simpson, Guilty Or Not Guilty? posted Sat Sep 20 2008 22:22:39 by Dougloid