Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There's Not A Single Spending Cut That Republican Voters Support
Business Insider ^ | 12/11/2012 | Brett LoGiurato

Posted on 12/11/2012 9:50:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind

The "compromise" in the fiscal cliff deal from Democrats is supposed to come in the form of spending cuts. But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.

It goes hand in hand with the disparity between voters' wish for blanket "spending cuts" and their opposition to any cuts to an entitlement that benefits them. A look at what Republicans oppose:

By 47-37, letting the Obama payroll tax cut expire.

By 68-26, cutting spending for Medicare.

By 61-33, cutting spending for Medicaid.

By 66-28, eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.

By 72-25, eliminating the charitable tax deduction.

By 56-44, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

Republicans don't favor much in any potential deal — they also, of course, are opposed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on any income bracket. Pollster Lee M. Miringoff warns that they might be unhappy with whatever happens.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: debt; republicans; spending

1 posted on 12/11/2012 9:50:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

the only way the federal budget can be cut is to cut every agency the same. that way no one is exempt, nobody gets favored over any other, everybody shares. cut every agency 1% per year and see what happens.


2 posted on 12/11/2012 9:52:50 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Republicans don’t favor much in any potential deal — they also, of course, are opposed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on any income bracket.”

He means BUSH’S TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! There was no tax cut for the middle class. At least that’s what Democrats and the MSM told us for 8 years.

All of a sudden the narrative changed. And Republicans didn’t even offer up a whimper.


3 posted on 12/11/2012 9:54:12 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (You cant bring something to its knees that refuses to stand on its own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.

Of course they do. These are the spending cuts that the Democrats came up with. You want to cut spending? Fine. Cut 10% across the board for everything. Eliminate the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education. Cut the Department of Energy by 75% and fold the remainder into the Department of Interior. Kill Obamacare in its tracks. Kill HUD and FHA. And for Pete's sake, STOP GIVING FOOD STAMPS TO FAT PEOPLE!

4 posted on 12/11/2012 9:56:25 AM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not one of those is a “SPENDING CUT”!


5 posted on 12/11/2012 9:58:21 AM PST by ImAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

The left wins with that strategy. They’ve been inflating every handout program on the sun, and cutting Article 1 Section 1 items. I don’t know if 1%-across-the-board is the only way, we’re sunk if so, as it cuts tremendously inflated departments with a pin prick, and continues to devastate Art1-Sect8.


6 posted on 12/11/2012 9:58:30 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What about the spending cuts that have not been proposed - like cutting foreign aid, food stamps, and all other forms of welfare...


7 posted on 12/11/2012 10:01:03 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why don't they ask if we can completely eliminate Obamacare and all these stupid government agencies that waste money and cripple the private sector as in the EPA, FDA, etc?

The stupid liberal media never mentions my plan:

1. abolish the EPA, Obamacare
2. get rid of the FCC, FEC, FDA, HUD, government schools, dept of energy, OFCCP(affirmative action), IRS, etc., medicaid, foodtamps, welfare, government housing(Projects) etc. etc.

Why is that tyrannical, socialist, crap needed ?

8 posted on 12/11/2012 10:03:13 AM PST by Democrat_media (limit government to 5000 words of laws. how to limit gov Quantify limited government ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; ...
RE :”The “compromise” in the fiscal cliff deal from Democrats is supposed to come in the form of spending cuts. But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.
It goes hand in hand with the disparity between voters’ wish for blanket “spending cuts” and their opposition to any cuts to an entitlement that benefits them. A look at what Republicans oppose:
By 47-37, letting the Obama payroll tax cut expire.
By 68-26, cutting spending for Medicare.
By 61-33, cutting spending for Medicaid.
By 66-28, eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.
By 72-25, eliminating the charitable tax deduction.
By 56-44, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. “

Some of those are tax related: like ones a SS/FICA tax to pay for SS(still debt) , another is a deduction, but its a great point, cold water on a cold day.

Republicans all agree they dont like Obama, and agree on the general idea that we need spending cuts (except defense, SS or medicare), but that is about it.
That is why Ryan's plan cut, err reformed, err I mean saved, LOL, medicare 10 years in the future. Not a promising sign.

9 posted on 12/11/2012 10:03:31 AM PST by sickoflibs (Dems know how to win. Rs know how to whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding among socialists of what exactly is a spending cut.

Increasing the intake of funds, IS NOT THE SAME AS REDUCING OUTFLOW OF FUNDS.

Example of a spending cut:

Firing half of the staff of the Department of Education. The cash savings associated with their salaries can rightly be called a spending cut.


10 posted on 12/11/2012 10:04:19 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
"What about the spending cuts that have not been proposed - like cutting foreign aid, food stamps, and all other forms of welfare..."

While I have no problem with cutting those programs at the Federal level, if you got rid of all of them we would still have almost a trillion dollar annual defict. SS, Medicade and Medicare, Military and interest on the debt is where most of the spending occurs.

11 posted on 12/11/2012 10:05:41 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: camle

You’re right. that said, it’ll never happen.

how can they buy votes without giving away free cheese?


12 posted on 12/11/2012 10:06:42 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As a conservative that votes Republican, I support all spending cut backs!


13 posted on 12/11/2012 10:08:22 AM PST by Shark24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The puppet show to keep the masses occupied as their chains are readied. This Congress and the MSM have become reduced to the absurd. I wish I could just change the channel.

But this is not a reality show, it is reality. And the damage done to the Titanic is enough that I don't want to head back to the dining room and sing songs with the Choir.

The world is now going to change, and not for the better. 5 years from now, nobody will care about any of this horse manure.

You want to cut the military budget? Try cutting the 20 brand new F16’s being delivered to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or the brand new M1 tanks. See what I mean by a puppet show of the absurd?

Why do we pretend this Cliff crap is real? When Boner loaded the deck for the democrats, Congress lost its last 2% of credibility. Nothing left but the smoke and mirrors.

14 posted on 12/11/2012 10:09:19 AM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I head a report on FNC that Steny Hoyer took to the house floor and said the Republicans have no plan “How are they going to pay for all these spending cuts they want”(paraphrased). I just had to laugh!


15 posted on 12/11/2012 10:10:03 AM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

By 66-28, eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.

By 72-25, eliminating the charitable tax deduction.


Those are “spending”? Guess it all is their money.

Why not just “tax” everybody 100%, then give us all an “allowance”?

When is enough enough?

When I think of spending cuts, what comes to mind, for starters, is:

50% at TSA & related;

100% at Dept of Ed;

75% at EPA and related;

25-50% (for starters) at Dept of Energy, not including chopping 100% of all “research” grants for green (pockets) energy “research” & “investment”;

repeal of Obamacare, with all its huge costs.


16 posted on 12/11/2012 10:10:03 AM PST by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If we were a democracy, we could poll the voters and ask them where they would like the cuts to take place. As indicated on this poll, the voters would answer "Nowhere" because every program has its fans.

But we are a republic. We have elected leaders. And that's what's missing: Leadership. The folks in Washington are supposed to be ignoring the voters, they are supposed to be looking at the numbers, and they are supposed to be making hard choices on things like entitlement program and, yes, even on defense.

But our leaders do not lead. They follow the polls. And so nothing is done.

17 posted on 12/11/2012 10:11:37 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Republicans have made themselves useless, toothless, and clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

LMAO...

Notice the Leftist programs like welfare, housing payments, AFDS, extended unemployment, food stamps, school breakfasts and lunches, government day care, free phones, health care and other services for illegal aliens and the like are not listed there.

Another-words, the Republicans are evil if they don’t want the Left to be able to buy voters.

Everything that has been submitted for cuts, involves the military, medicare, and or social security.

Of these, only the military is something our government is suppose to expend funds for. By contract (implicit) with citizens, medicare, and social security are agreed to by citizens.

The list of Leftist goodies are not something citizens have signed on to. They don’t contribute funds for them.

Why are they the last to be addressed every single time?


18 posted on 12/11/2012 10:11:55 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and over 60 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

the issue isn’t whether the left wins or loses, it’s cutting federal spending in the most politically feasible manner. and if cutting federal spending is so important, then we shouldn’t keep a scorecard - treat everybody the same. if who wins or loses is paramount, then thte issue isn’t about spending, but politics.


19 posted on 12/11/2012 10:16:31 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why didn't they offer the choice of funding the EPA and Education departmentz at their 2007 levels, or eliminating them.

How about reducing the size of the federal nonmilitary work force?

There are plenty of spending cuts conservatives will get behind.

20 posted on 12/11/2012 10:17:02 AM PST by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

if the ‘fiscal cliff’ was setup with even cuts across the board, the people would be clamoring for it...


21 posted on 12/11/2012 10:17:33 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I didn't read the article, just the excerpt, but why are they calling it a spending cut to let taxes expire? That's not a spending cut, that's a tax increase.

Words mean things.

22 posted on 12/11/2012 10:18:38 AM PST by ArGee (Reality - what a concept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Clearly the public does not understand the concept of Baseline Budgeting.


23 posted on 12/11/2012 10:20:31 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Good morning.

One year of added age eligibility to each age quintile beginning at 40, solves funding for both Medicare and SS. For example: persons who are 40 at Jan 1 20xx can retire and get Medicare/SS at age 66 (no early op in). Persons who are 35 at Jan 1 20xx can retire and get Medicare/SS at age 67. Age 30, 68, age 25, 69 and age 20, 70. This way the ponzi scheme makes it to 2060 (more births than deaths gets us further out). And it's "fair," whatever that means.

Lowers the unfunded liabilities too, but it seems that doesn't matter to a majority of people for some reason.

Please feel free to check the math (actuarial tables, 15.3% rate, census, etc.)

5.56mm

24 posted on 12/11/2012 10:20:58 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Just looking at the first sentence of this thing I knew what the “choices” would be. It’s like a Mayor whose middle management city employees are hauling in $100,000 each, and who is spending millions on a proposed new city building with his name on it, saying any cut in the city budget would have to begin with the police and fire departments. And the streetlights. Don’t forget the streetlights.

And people STILL buy this crap.


25 posted on 12/11/2012 10:25:01 AM PST by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

As recently as fiscal year 2001, President Clinton’s last budget, federal spending amounted to just $1.9 trillion. If spending since 2000 had simply increased at the rate of inflation plus population growth, spending this year would have been less than $2.69 trillion.

Our budget deficit this year, despite those Bush tax cuts and a recession-driven decline in revenue, would have been just $241 billion, compared with an actual deficit of more than $1.1 trillion.

In fact, even starting from today’s spending levels, if future spending grew at inflation plus population, it would be only $4.8 trillion in 2022. The budget deficit in that year would be $199 billion, with deficits decreasing each year.

Compare this to Obama’s proposed fiscal-cliff deal, which would increase spending to $5.5 trillion in 2022, the same as the current baseline. That’s right: The president’s proposal does not reduce spending at all. There are no net cuts, not even in the Washington sense of reductions from the baseline. The few programmatic cuts he recommends, most of which lack specifics, are offset by other spending increases. All that spending means that, if the president gets every bit of the $1.6 trillion in new taxes he has asked for, we would still add $6 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years, and run a $661 billion deficit in 2022. Moreover, since there are so few specifics in the president’s proposal, these estimates likely underestimate the amount of spending, debt, and deficits it would incur.


26 posted on 12/11/2012 10:26:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
Those are “spending”? Guess it all is their money.

The liberals are tipping their hand when they call tax cuts "expenditures." They reveal whose money they think it is.

27 posted on 12/11/2012 10:32:49 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
What is considered a "tax cut" virtually everywhere else in the world is considered, in Washington DC to be a "tax expenditure".

In other words, your income presumably belongs to the government except for the portion they decide that you may keep.

In a similar manner, an increase in tax rates is considered to be "revenue enhancement", regardless of whether the rate increase actually results in the collection of more tax money.

Yes, it's crazy, but it is no crazier than the common public belief that the government can run deficits endlessly without consequence by increasing taxes on someone else.

28 posted on 12/11/2012 10:34:37 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Cogito, ergo armatum sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
The "compromise" in the fiscal cliff deal from Democrats is supposed to come in the form of spending cuts. But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.

Noting that the states should be providing the government services that the corrupt federal government is now wrongly providing, the widespread opposition to federal spending cuts indicates to me how widespread ignorance of the Constitution is, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers which is the main purpose of the Constitution.

As I've mentioned in other threads, based on the Founder's division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes for anything that it cannot justify under Section 8. This is essentialy postal services (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7) where domestic-related federal government services are concerned.

So the Constitution was actually knocked off its foundation in a big way as a consequence of widespread ignorance of the Constitution when voters unthinkingly allowed FDR to tear it to pieces. And Obama, along with the help of Obama guard dog Fx News, is just finishing the job.

I'm to the point where I think that voters can sleep in the bed that they have made for themselves.

29 posted on 12/11/2012 10:39:10 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I support spending cuts - specifically cutting federal spending by $500B for 2013, another $400B below 2013 spending for 2014, and another $400B below 2014 spending for 2015. I could list the specific cuts, and they would all make Chrissy Matthews cry like a little girl, but none of them would hurt America anywhere near as much as the reckless spending does.

Our target budget should be Clinton's last budget, adjusted upward for inflation and population growth, with EVERYTHING beyond that level requiring a line item vote for approval, one line item at a time. The democrats are advocating child abuse when they have giveaways for the special interest groups that deliver their votes and then borrow money so our children are paying for the far left to buy votes. Even that target is actually extravagant and should be cut even further.

30 posted on 12/11/2012 10:42:08 AM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

Neither Obama nor Republicans are offering any serious structural reforms to entitlements, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those three programs alone constitute 44 percent of federal spending this year, and by 2022, they will amount to more than 54 percent of the federal budget.

Worse, the real explosion of entitlement costs takes place just outside the ten-year budget window currently being debated. While entitlement changes will appear to have only a moderate impact on this budget deal, failure to reform these programs will guarantee an unsustainable growth in federal spending over the long term.

If we simply followed a budget that uses inflation- and population-adjusted spending path from 2001 continued to 2022, spending in 2022 would be only $3.61 trillion (NOT NOW), compared with the $5.51 trillion the current baseline predicts. This spending path would have seen budget deficits top out at a little less than $400 billion in 2009 and then return to surplus by 2014.

In fact, even starting from today’s spending levels, if future spending grew at inflation plus population, it would be only $4.8 trillion in 2022. The budget deficit in that year would be $199 billion, with deficits decreasing each year.

WE COULD DO IT BUT NEITHER SIDE HAS THE COLLECTIVE DESIRE OR WILL TO PROPOSE IT ( Connie Mack and Rand Paul have, but nobody is listening to them. Mack recently was DEFEATED in his bid for the Senate ).


31 posted on 12/11/2012 10:42:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Maybe going into the automatic cuts and sequestration is the only answer.


32 posted on 12/11/2012 10:45:48 AM PST by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk oMnly to me.Reid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I propose the following solution:

- All entitlements are eliminated.

- All departments except for defense are eliminated.

- All the people that participated in this poll are placed in concentration camps, along with all Democrats and either re-educated or terminated.


33 posted on 12/11/2012 10:55:49 AM PST by TheRhinelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican strategy. We act as though spending cuts are MORE important than tax cuts. That just falls into the Democrat trap, where Republicans want to throw Grandma off the cliff in order to protect their precious tax cuts for the rich.

Face it, the American people and probably people in any country anywhere will always vote for low taxes and generous benefits. Republicans and Democrats both. Every year the California ballot includes plenty of both, and they generally pass. The exact same people pull the lever specifically for low taxes and generous benefits. Yes, it’s stupid and irrational, but most people are stupid and irrational. Nothing new there.

In the big picture, the Republicans are the party of low taxes; the Democrats the party of generous benefits. The party that appears to be more serious about delivering on their side of the equation and seems relatively un-threatening to the other side generally wins. Reagan and Bush II lowered taxes, but barely cut anything and grew spending. Obama and Clinton spent heavily, but raised taxes just a bit around the fringes. They lose when they can’t be trusted to deliver on it (Bush I raising taxes, for example).

The ace in the hole for the GOP is that ultimately Dem’s need tax dollars to deliver on their spending promises. Yes, they can borrow or print for a while, but eventually the “bond market” will require that it be paid for. As long as we hold the line on taxes, eventually spending will have come in line.

Therefore, for the GOP to demand that any tax increase in return for “spending cuts” is the most idiotic thing they can possibly do. We sacrifice our brand identity in order to get something that our base doesn’t even want. It’s positively stupid.

We should never for any tax increase ever. Then, let the Democrats spend until the bond market steps in and forces them to make cuts, and hang the cuts around their necks. But never appear to be for “spending cuts”. Just low taxes.


34 posted on 12/11/2012 10:58:32 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
But a new Marist-McClatchy poll shows that voters — including Republicans — oppose any and every specific spending cut proposed to them.

This graphically illustrates the pernicious effect of entitlements and government growth. Look at this list and remember that there was a time when this entitlement did not exist! Except for the advocates that pushed for these programs and deductions, people did not notice the lack.

Now consider why people cling to these programs, is it not at least in part because they have a feeling of encroaching government that takes things away? If we had a growing economy with an active job creation, would these 2 year old Obama Payroll cuts be so significant? Yet when it is the government itself whose policies appear to depress the job market (and may do so for the next 4 years), how can people feel able to give up even a little?

35 posted on 12/11/2012 10:59:17 AM PST by SES1066 (Government is NOT the reason for my existence but it is the road to our ruin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Americans also REJECTED Obamacare by around 65-35 poll after poll!!


36 posted on 12/11/2012 11:00:48 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty (Be the Enemy Within the Enemy Within...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
everybody shares.

Yep! Since it is our current President who said that "When times are tough, you tighten your belts." "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."
37 posted on 12/11/2012 11:06:59 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty (Be the Enemy Within the Enemy Within...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
Maybe going into the automatic cuts and sequestration is the only answer.

This only accounts for $100 billion in cuts. What about the remaining $1+ trillion in deficit spending?

This whole sequestration nonsense is nothing more than a big joke the Dems pulled on the Republicans. The agreement 16 months ago is that the Republicans would sign on to increasing the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion in order to get us through to the end of March 2013. In return, the Democrats would cut spending by $100 billion. Now here we are 16 months later. The Dems are already about to run out of that $2.5 trillion in cash three months early, and at the same time, Democrats haven't cut spending one single dime.

So here we are today with the Democrats demanding another $2.5 trillion raise in the debt ceiling in exchange for the exact same spending cuts they promised last time. And in addition, they want an immediate $50 billion increase in spending and a $80 billion tax hike. Republicans are idiots.

38 posted on 12/11/2012 11:08:58 AM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m glad someone brought up the concept of Baseline Budgeting. How about this change: set the baseline to -5% each year, for the next 10 years?


39 posted on 12/11/2012 11:47:07 AM PST by asinclair (B*llshit is a renewable resource.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The “poll” didn't offer to cut a few hundred thousand wasteful items, like fundng for NPR, paying for the building of thousands of mosques in Middle East, exorbitant salaries for Obozo’s wife's staff, exorbitant vacations for the White House mutt, ad nauseam.
40 posted on 12/11/2012 11:53:22 AM PST by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stealth Ninja

Eliminate all entitlement increases since 2009. Eliminate all federal sub-prime mortgage programs(Fannie, FHA. End all gov. workers pensions (except national defense), and offer them a 401k option with 25% matching. That’s 1.5 trillion a year in immediate cuts. That creates a surplus. Done.


41 posted on 12/11/2012 12:17:02 PM PST by Stealth Ninja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Brett is very limited, like the GOP, on the trillion of dollars in options for making cuts. We are not going to cut off the targeted old white people so liberals can transfer the money to free diversity government motor cars and corporatists can shake down the treasury for more money in the name of the latest homeland inSecurity scam. Global warming? Anti-Terrorism drones for every police department?

Why would not Republicans trust the political elite to make “deals” for fiscal conserative change???? Brett is a liberatarian born yesterday, I bet!


42 posted on 12/11/2012 12:29:12 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But our leaders do not lead. They follow the polls.

"We all do no end of feeling and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. It's name is public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God."
-- Mark Twain

43 posted on 12/11/2012 12:48:09 PM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I need a copy of the federal budget. I’ll bring my own chainsaw and woodchipper.


44 posted on 12/11/2012 12:48:30 PM PST by ExGeeEye (I'll give y'all 90 days for the wounds to heal; then we start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

Yea, and same damn thing with school budgets. First things to go are sports and the buses! It is the same old game over and over.


45 posted on 12/11/2012 12:56:36 PM PST by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Time for TWO measures:

(1) Zero-based budgeting. No more “expanding baselines”. If you spend X dollars in one year, anything over “X” in following years is an increase.

(2)Implement the O’Rourke Fiscal Circumcision Principle, across all Federal Departments and Agencies. Simply put: you can cut 10% off the top of ANYTHING without hurting it. . .


46 posted on 12/11/2012 1:08:00 PM PST by Salgak (Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border. I **DARE** you to cross it. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree with your thoughts here.

If Bush were running these deficits, the media would already have set up a hanging tree.


47 posted on 12/11/2012 3:15:12 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and over 60 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Triple

If the budget calls for a 25% increase and you only increase it by 20%, that is not a spending cut.


48 posted on 12/11/2012 3:43:46 PM PST by NathanR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NathanR

Absolutely...

An increase smaller than planned is not a decrease; it is an increase.

That is the other mistake that the socialists in government (d&r).


49 posted on 12/11/2012 5:47:04 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Triple

The States can help by cutting those departments in 1/2 that get most of their funding from the Feds...


50 posted on 12/11/2012 5:56:42 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson