cutting the budget

[buckman]

Can't we just level fund everything with no cuts and balance the budget over a period of time????

[scottw]

we've grown the budget and deficit spending to unsustainable proportions so now we're going to cap the budget for 5 years at those unsustainable proportions and the Obama voters will bitch at the Republicans for not making the cuts that they were promised by the Republicans when the Obama voters didn't vote for Republicans and the cuts that they were promised even as the guy that they voted for continues to propose new spending....get it?

if they do make any cuts they'll be called draconians drinking the blood out of little school children for each and every cut....


it's like a guy eating himself to obesity and then telling his doctor after he's been informed that he's about to have a heart attack any second, that he's capping his current eating levels for 5 years because he needs to maintain his 400 pounds and then his wife bitching to the doctor that the doctor is not doing enough

[RIROCKHOUND]

Except that in this case, the Dr (the right) is calling for wide-spread cuts to your diet because your at 400lbs and you're projected to weigh 600lbs, BUT you can only cut out your snacks, you can eat as much at the rest of your meals as you want.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except that in this case, the Dr (the right) is calling for wide-spread cuts to your diet because your at 400lbs and you're projected to weigh 600lbs, BUT you can only cut out your snacks, you can eat as much at the rest of your meals as you want.

like I said....blame the Doctor...and continue along with status quo fatso..........

how's that Chaffee(best man to lead us forward) budget coming?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except that in this case, the Dr (the right) is calling for wide-spread cuts to your diet because your at 400lbs and you're projected to weigh 600lbs, BUT you can only cut out your snacks, you can eat as much at the rest of your meals as you want.

You keep suggesting that the right does not think we need to cut the big entitlement programs.

Here's an MSNBC kook suggesting that the left go after John Boehner and Mike Pence for suggesting we may need to raise the age at which we collect social security benefits.

Cenk Uygur: If the Democrats Have Any Sense They'll Make Social Security a Defining Issue for 2010 | Video Cafe

I could have posted a thousand links to liberal op-eds who claim that conservatives hate old people and sick people.

There is no specific plan (yet) to address the entitlements. But conservatives are the only ones talking baout it, and they always get attacked for their honesty. Heck, in the other thread, I mentioned switching pensions to 401(k)s and one of the retired cops said I therefore shouldn't call the police if I need help!! Is that productive dialogue?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You keep suggesting that the right does not think we need to cut the big entitlement programs.

it's very dangerous to go after these goverment teats politically, remember the "Gingrich wants to let your entitlement wither on the vine" episode?....there is great power in having large portions of the electorate dependent on your various Ponzi schemes, particularly if you have no shame when it comes to riling up the dependents against those that you say threaten their place at the teat....it's about as low as you can go but it does work...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's very dangerous to go after these goverment teats politically, remember the "Gingrich wants to let your entitlement wither on the vine" episode?....there is great power in having large portions of the electorate dependent on your various Ponzi schemes, particularly if you have no shame when it comes to riling up the dependents against those that you say threaten their place at the teat....it's about as low as you can go but it does work...

I agree with you 100%, this gets back to my whjole point that liberal doctrine DEPENDS upon a large block of voters addicted to liberal entitlements, and then every year at election time, liberals attack any conservative who dares to suggest that we might need to cut entitlements. It's a putrid tactic, but very effective. Again, if we had term limits, no one would care about re-election, so they would have more ability to do the right thing, versus doing the politically correct thing.

I'd love to hear RIROCKHOUND'S take on this. He usually sides with liberals (from my observation), yet he seems to grasp that we need to address these entitlements. So rockhound, if you do indeed think we need to address these entitlements, how do you feel about the left's long-standing practice of demonizing anyone who dares to mention entitlement reform?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and then every year at election time, liberals attack any conservative who dares to suggest that we might need to cut entitlements.

And most conservative dance around this by saying we need cuts w/o a specific plan because they don't want to lose votes, especially among seniors. It;s putrid on both sides.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'd love to hear RIROCKHOUND'S take on this. He usually sides with liberals (from my observation), yet he seems to grasp that we need to address these entitlements. So rockhound, if you do indeed think we need to address these entitlements, how do you feel about the left's long-standing practice of demonizing anyone who dares to mention entitlement reform?

I just said above, I think both sides like to play this card for politics, thats my opinion on that.

You think all liberals are mentally defective, but a surprising amount of us don't have a problem with some common sense steps. The problem is both sides aren't putting forward seemingly reasonable plans. again, like pensions, we can't start #^&#^&#^&#^&ing with people retired or close to it.

lets start with everyone under 45, raise the SS age by 2 years. or offer more steps where the longer you wait the higher the % you'll receive annually...

[scottw]

I'd look for moral relativism..."all politicians are the same"..."everyone does it"...."they're politicians"..."they all lie" ..."judge not lest ye be judged"..."let he who is without sin cast the first stone"(that was a good one in the Clinton era)....stuff like that...meanwhile...Rome burns



WOW...am I good or what!!!

I honestly didn't see Bryans post till after I'd posted mine....I'm in your head Bry

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Can't we just level fund everything with no cuts and balance the budget over a period of time????

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no". Here's why. Many of these entitlements involve retirement pensions and healthcare benefits to folks after they retire. That program worked great 30 years ago, when there were (1) way more workers paying into the plan then retirees taking money out, (2) retirees who didn't live that long, and (3) manageable medical costs.

The math has all changed, thanks to...

(1) a demographic tsunami called the baby Boomers. Starting January 1, 2011 TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE A DAY will become eligible for social security and medicare. That trend will continue for almost 20 years. SO the ratio of workers to retirees is decreasing rapidly, menaing not enough money going in and way too much coming out.

(2) retirees are living much, much longer, menaing they will need a whole lot more money.

(3) medical costs are soaring. Consider this staggering fact. Half of all medical expenses are incurred in the last 6 months of the average person's life. It's hard to grasp how much money the baby boomers will spend on healthcare in retirement.

This is not a problem Obama created, he did inherit this one. But it's also fair to say that conservatives have been the predominant voice of concern about the coming implosion.

The latest estimates of unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare are in the tens of trillions. The average estimate that I've seen is $40 trillion dollars. There are 300 million people living in the US. That means that every American needs to kick in an extra $133,333 to make these programs viable.

Just think about that number for a second.