Good/Bad Idea- cut gov spending by %

[jbartle1]

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

[retiredguy123]

Some people think that, if you require a department to cut spending by 10 percent, they will cut the inefficient people and spending items. However, in most departments, they will do the exact opposite. They will eliminate the most efficient parts of the department, and then, when they are criticized for not performing, they will blame it on the mandated cuts and ask for more money. In Government, there is no profit or efficiency motive. The name of the game is to spend as much taxpayer money as you can get.

[Bill14564]

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

Would you do this with your personal budget? If you needed to save money would you cut your grocery, water, and electricity spending by the same percentage as you might cut your cruise, airline, hotel, or restaurant spending? Or, would you determine what is essential (food, water, A/C) and what is not-so-essential (cruise, hotel, restaurant) and cut the non-essential items more?

[vintageogauge]

There no desire for elected officials to cut spending when all they do add their pet projects to bills. It should be mandatory for federal government to balance budget and pay down debt or they don’t get paid. IMO need go back to gold standard and stop federal reserve from just printing money like it Sunday news paper. And quit bailing out banks and GM.

Exactly how much gold do we have? Whatever it is it's worth a lot more than it was a couple years ago.

[Caymus]

Exactly how much gold do we have? Whatever it is it's worth a lot more than it was a couple years ago.

China may have a lot more.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1FQ59B?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Topspinmo]

Exactly how much gold do we have? Whatever it is it's worth a lot more than it was a couple years ago.

Nobody really knows :ohdear:

[jimhoward]

Here is a fun fact.....

If you fired all government employees, not just wasteful or redundant ones but all of them (not counting active military) eliminating every department you would save about 4.6% the federal budget.

If you then also fired all the active military, so there was no one at all left directly in government and no one protecting our country you would save an additional 3% for a total of 7.6%.

We would still be deficit spending. Its hard to cut spending when so much of it is things like interest on the debt.

The source for this is just internet google searches on the federal budget.

[Pugchief]

Would you do this with your personal budget? If you needed to save money would you cut your grocery, water, and electricity spending by the same percentage as you might cut your cruise, airline, hotel, or restaurant spending? Or, would you determine what is essential (food, water, A/C) and what is not-so-essential (cruise, hotel, restaurant) and cut the non-essential items more?

This seems so logical, until you acknowledge that the public sector does not need to operate like either a business or person financially. If they did, they would have declared bankruptcy long ago. They can simply bail themselves out by printing money (federal) or increasing taxes (state, county, municipal). Until they can't. And that's when you have a HUGE problem.

[tophcfa]

Works for me under three conditions. Don’t cut Medicare, don’t cut social security, and use 100% savings to reduce deficit/national debt.

[Rainger99]

Last year, the federal budget was $6.9 trillion

1. Mandatory Spending was $4.2 trillion or 61% of the total budget.
Of this, Social Security was $1.46 trillion or 21.2%
Medicare was $0.97 trillion or 14.1%
Medicaid was $0.60 trillion or 8.7%
Veterans’ Benefits was $0.32 trillion or 4.6%)
Other Mandatory spending was $0.85 trillion 12.3%

2. Discretionary Spending was $1.8 trillion or 26% of total budget
This was broken down by Defense which was $0.87 trillion 12.6% of total budget and 48% of discretionary
Non-Defense (e.g., education, transportation, housing) was $0.93 trillion or 13.5% of the budget and 52% of the discretionary

3. Net Interest on Debt was $0.88 trillion or 12.8% of total budget. I believe that this is the first time that interest has exceeded the defense budget.

In 2019, the federal budget was $4.45 trillion. That means that from 2019 to 2024, the federal government spending has increased by $2.45 trillion. That is about a 55% increase in just 5 years. If we just went back to 2019 spending, we could save a lot of money.

[retiredguy123]

Last year, the federal budget was $6.9 trillion

1. Mandatory Spending was $4.2 trillion or 61% of the total budget.
Of this, Social Security was $1.46 trillion or 21.2%
Medicare was $0.97 trillion or 14.1%
Medicaid was $0.60 trillion or 8.7%
Veterans’ Benefits was $0.32 trillion or 4.6%)
Other Mandatory spending was $0.85 trillion 12.3%

2. Discretionary Spending was $1.8 trillion or 26% of total budget
This was broken down by Defense which was $0.87 trillion 12.6% of total budget and 48% of discretionary
Non-Defense (e.g., education, transportation, housing) was $0.93 trillion or 13.5% of the budget and 52% of the discretionary

3. Net Interest on Debt was $0.88 trillion or 12.8% of total budget. I believe that this is the first time that interest has exceeded the defense budget.

In 2019, the federal budget was $4.45 trillion. That means that from 2019 to 2024, the federal government spending has increased by $2.45 trillion. That is about a 55% increase in just 5 years. If we just went back to 2019 spending, we could save a lot of money.
Why is Medicaid considered mandatory spending?

I would also mention that fraudulant and wasteful spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans benefits is also not mandatory.

[Rainger99]

Why is Medicaid considered mandatory spending?

Federal law mandates that the government provide benefits to anyone meeting Medicaid eligibility criteria, creating a binding commitment.

[retiredguy123]

Federal law mandates that the government provide benefits to anyone meeting Medicaid eligibility criteria, creating a binding commitment.
All Federal spending is prescribed by Federal law. Congress spends money all the time by passing Federal laws.

[Bill14564]

All Federal spending is prescribed by Federal law. Congress spends money all the time by passing Federal laws.

Some Federal laws *authorize* spending while other *mandate* spending.

[Cuervo]

Maybe we need to spend money to save money.
All I keep on hearing lately is AI, AI, AI, let's take it out for a spin and see if it can point out where we can cut unnecessary spending.
Attack this like we did with the Manhattan project to develop the atomic bomb.
Form a team of adults to supervise the task who have experienced life, not a gang of 20-year-olds, who school project is to cut spending without thinking about the consequences.

[Tomptomp]

Do you receive entitlements?

[jim@jedward.com]

1. Not all departments have the same priority.
2. Not all projects within a department have the same priority.
3. Not all departments are currently bloated to the same percentage.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Yes, but first,
for social Security, raise FICA taxes by increasing the cap to unlimited, and if not enough, increase the percentage above $500K, to make the program solvent.

For healthcare, needs a non lobbyist review and revamping, not minor bandaids, and incur income limits
sorry @MAT, i don't have sympathy for very successful people paying extra, like a graduated system.
Increase the graduated income tax on the higher earners. . MA has a budget surplus due to taxes on millionaires!

and cry me a river about taxes on very high earners, they don't miss it, and look at the population and makeup of the income sources, and the tax can be higher without impacting them at all. .

govt spending is an easy scapegoat for unhappiness and assumed theft, but the recirculation of dollars back into the economy provides alot of invisible benefits. . .. if its alot about you, then govt spending isn't visible,

[gorillarick]

Mandatory vs Discretionary ?
Maybe we need to look at all spending !

Have you looked at any of the DOGE findings? Probably not.
Like Dept of Education party at Caesar's Palace? Big party.
DofEd Renting out a stadium? For what?

[Nordhagen]

Let me guess, you’re not one of the high earners.

[Nordhagen]

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!
How about not spending more than you take in. Called a balanced budget(amendment?)

[merrymini]

If Florida can have a balanced budget why can’t every state? Why can’t the government? There is certainly lots of waste in medicare and medicaid. I am all for trimming the fat. If the numbers are correct, and 50 percent of the population is on the receiving end, then something is WRONG. Social security was a pyramid scheme and should have been adjusted for life expectancy. Why do you think they picked 65 as retirement? Most people did not live long enough to see it!

[lpkruege1]

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

Why not go back to pre-pandemic spending?
Time to go back to zero based budgeting. There are too many sunset budgets that are still being funded and increased.

[MikePgh]

Would you do this with your personal budget? If you needed to save money would you cut your grocery, water, and electricity spending by the same percentage as you might cut your cruise, airline, hotel, or restaurant spending? Or, would you determine what is essential (food, water, A/C) and what is not-so-essential (cruise, hotel, restaurant) and cut the non-essential items more?

Great analogy. Kudos.

[opinionist]

We would not have a spending problem if the Constitution's explicit restrictions on government power were respected. Judges have ruled that anything deemed to be "necessary and proper" can ignore those explicit restrictions without a Constitutional amendment. There was a reason the explicit restrictions existed, and the violations were never "necessary and proper."

[Bill14564]

We would not have a spending problem if the Constitution's explicit restrictions on government power were respected. Judges have ruled that anything deemed to be "necessary and proper" can ignore those explicit restrictions without a Constitutional amendment. There was a reason the explicit restrictions existed, and the violations were never "necessary and proper."

Out of curiosity, what are the explicit restrictions and what is an example of a current Govt. program/spending which violates those explicit restrictions and is therefore unconstitutional?

[joshgun]

In New York 44% of residents are on Medicaid; in California 38% of residents are on Medicaid. The national average is 20%. A scalpel needs to be used on Medicaid spending not a butcher knife.

[retiredguy123]

In New York 44% of residents are on Medicaid; in California 38% of residents are on Medicaid. The national average is 20%. A scalpel needs to be used on Medicaid spending not a butcher knife.
Well, if you believe Post No. 10, you can't cut Medicaid because it is "mandatory spending".

[LucyP]

All dept not same in spending. According to what going out , what is needed. Not a perfect world. Take out fraud going on with some. You thought just general easy way out but we need clean house.

[Bill14564]

Well, if you believe Post No. 10, you can't cut Medicaid because it is "mandatory spending".

That's a misrepresentation of post #10.

What do you mean by "cut Medicaid?"
- If you means eliminate it entirely then no, that would take a new law to repeal the old law. (actually, I've not looked up the law establishing Medicaid but I believe it exists)
- If you mean take a scalpel to the program to eliminate/reduce wasteful practices and fraudulent claims then that is absolutely something that can be done.

"Let's just kick everyone off the program and point to survivors as proof that there was fraud" may be popular but is a rather ham-handed approach.

A lot of govt programs are wasteful right up until the day you need to use them.

[spinner1001]

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

“to arrive at acceptable reduction”

Acceptable to who?

Hint: Almost no one.

[Ptmcbriz]

Raise (instead of cut) billionaires taxes so they pay their fair share. Close those IRS loop holes. We now have enough money to pay everything and pay money down on the debt annually. Simple, clean, and fair.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

A lot of govt programs are wasteful right up until the day you need to use them.

correct! most important point when looking at the services which are provided by the government, when population is expanding, and employment opportunities are declining, specifically middle income opportunities. There will always be minimum wage or labor opportunities, but that doesn't increase the standard of living, and increases dependency upon govt spending. .

thinking veterans administration hospital and disability services,


well typed!

[retiredguy123]

In New York 44% of residents are on Medicaid; in California 38% of residents are on Medicaid. The national average is 20%. A scalpel needs to be used on Medicaid spending not a butcher knife.
A lot of people don't know that the ACA (Affordable Care Act) law greatly increased the eligibility for Medicaid by increasing the eligibility to 4 times the poverty level. Some people, who were happy with their private health insurance, were forced to go onto a Medicaid plan because the ACA law made their private health insurance plan illegal. That is why there are so many people on Medicaid today. This one law is responsible for a huge increase in Medicaid spending.

[TomSwango]

Why reduce spending with different percentage by dept, need to reduce deficits by x dollars, cut SAME % for ALL DEPT to arrive at acceptable reduction. Surely I’m not the first to think of this, this alone would reduce need for budget dept, ha!

While the same percentage accross the board may sound good it is not good. Not "ALL DEPT" have equal priority. As an example, defense may be more of a priority than some other "DEPT" since without defense then none of the other items may matter.

Just like in ones personal life, one has to constantly make choices. Personally, I chose to spend more on health care and healthy food than I do on items that I may like but are not necessary.

[Bill14564]

A lot of people don't know that the ACA (Affordable Care Act) law greatly increased the eligibility for Medicaid by increasing the eligibility to 4 times the poverty level. Some people, who were happy with their private health insurance, were forced to go onto a Medicaid plan because the ACA law made their private health insurance plan illegal. That is why there are so many people on Medicaid today. This one law is responsible for a huge increase in Medicaid spending.

I believe you may be conflating some things here.

- ACA allows for tax credits for incomes at or below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). This is not Medicaid enrollment, these are credits towards obtaining health insurance.
- Simple Medicaid allows children and pregnant women to be enrolled at up to 233% FPL though this varies by state
- Medicaid Expansion seems to allow enrollment at 138% FPL for most adults. Not every state offers/follows Medicaid Expansion (FL and CA do not, NY does (https://povertylevelcalculator.com/medicaid/medicaid-eligibility-guides-by-state/))
- A health care plan may not actually provide much health care coverage which is why some plans were made illegal under ACA

It's a complicated issue.

[dougjb]

Well...following the initial post...let's see what we could just cut. Why not first cut airline safety (including air controllers)? Then lets move to cutting back on roadway repairs, signage and safety issues? Then lets cut the military and all veteran's programs? Perhaps we want to cut out bank regulators? How about cutting the departments that oversee nursing homes and assisted care facilities? Perhaps another cut could be made to those receiving life sustaining medications? Then we could cut the regulators of the financial markets and who oversee the safety of 401 (k)'s and pension plans? How about cutting Social Security?

I am sure we could cut and cut and cut...and then criticize it when a plane goes down with one of our relatives on board because there was inadequate oversight!

The DOGE approach failed. Only a tiny percentage of the federal budget was saved (like less than 1%). Yet, DOGE's cuts involved slashing the jobs of tens of thousands of employees, some of them long term who worked to make America safer for us. This was NOT the way to trim the budget. The Congress needs to focus on financial issues...not just which gender might be wearing a sports jersey!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

A lot of people don't know that the ACA (Affordable Care Act) law greatly increased the eligibility for Medicaid by increasing the eligibility to 4 times the poverty level. Some people, who were happy with their private health insurance, were forced to go onto a Medicaid plan because the ACA law made their private health insurance plan illegal. That is why there are so many people on Medicaid today. This one law is responsible for a huge increase in Medicaid spending.

Someone is just making stuff up and you've chosen to believe it.

The ACA provided Medicaid help for those earning less than 138% of the poverty rate. That's less than twice, not four times.

In Florida, the poverty level is $15,650 for a single person household. So anyone earning less than 138% of that - or $21,597 or less, can get Medicaid.

That also means - if you don't earn less than $21,598, you have to use the marketplace and you'll be eligible for subsidies (assistance toward regular health care premiums), but not Medicaid, which is much more comprehensive than regular health insurance.

Now, if you're jealous because poor people get decent health care, just imagine all those poor people NOT getting decent health care, being sick, dying, spreading disease to you and your loved ones in the supermarket, in public parks, on the beach, in the line at the bank, because they can't afford rent AND food AND a regular yearly checkup.

I for one am grateful that they get the help they need, and I don't mind kicking in a few bucks for the privilege of knowing MY risk of illness is reduced, because THEY were able to get medical care.

And, no one's private health insurance is illegal. That was never true and still isn't true. The law was if an insurance company wanted to offer plans on the Marketplace (an actual thing, not just a general term), it had to comply with specific criteria. If the company wanted to just be a concierge service, or offer only catastrophic care, or only cover broken bone insurance, or hangnail insurance, or skin disease insurance, it could do so. But not on the Marketplace.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Well...following the initial post...let's see what we could just cut. Why not first cut airline safety (including air controllers)? Then lets move to cutting back on roadway repairs, signage and safety issues? Then lets cut the military and all veteran's programs? Perhaps we want to cut out bank regulators? How about cutting the departments that oversee nursing homes and assisted care facilities? Perhaps another cut could be made to those receiving life sustaining medications? Then we could cut the regulators of the financial markets and who oversee the safety of 401 (k)'s and pension plans? How about cutting Social Security?

I am sure we could cut and cut and cut...and then criticize it when a plane goes down with one of our relatives on board because there was inadequate oversight!

The DOGE approach failed. Only a tiny percentage of the federal budget was saved (like less than 1%). Yet, DOGE's cuts involved slashing the jobs of tens of thousands of employees, some of them long term who worked to make America safer for us. This was NOT the way to trim the budget. The Congress needs to focus on financial issues...not just which gender might be wearing a sports jersey!

I can't agree more but I'll add - DOGE actually COST more money than it saved. So we ended up with a net loss. And now, with the unconstitutional slashing of departments that DOGE wasn't authorized to do, it's had to go to the courts, and that's costing millions of dollars in federal lawsuits every day. Lawyers don't work free, and when one government entity sues another, it's the taxpayer who foots the bill.

[retiredguy123]

That's a misrepresentation of post #10.

What do you mean by "cut Medicaid?"
- If you means eliminate it entirely then no, that would take a new law to repeal the old law. (actually, I've not looked up the law establishing Medicaid but I believe it exists)
- If you mean take a scalpel to the program to eliminate/reduce wasteful practices and fraudulent claims then that is absolutely something that can be done.

"Let's just kick everyone off the program and point to survivors as proof that there was fraud" may be popular but is a rather ham-handed approach.

A lot of govt programs are wasteful right up until the day you need to use them.
I don't see how I misrepresented anything. Post No.10 says that the Medicaid budget is $0.6 trillion, and that this is mandatory spending. That is all I said.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

You have to spend money to make money. But you also have to spend it efficiently. There are departments and agencies that have overlapping services. I wouldn't remove the service, I'd just remove the overlap. But if it's a social service, I'd keep the funding within the category of "social services funding" and not toss it into the Department of Homeland Security funding. Border patrol isn't a social service, and whether or not a building has gender-neutral bathrooms is not a matter of national security.

I'd create a new social service agency, an ombudsman office. So individuals with concerns can talk to someone there - and that person would help them reach the correct department and contact person. And they'd follow up to ensure that the person with the concern was able to connect. This would cut down on lines at the SS office, it'd cut down on thousands of phone calls to departments that can't help the person calling because it's the wrong department to handle it. It'd make the communication between citizen and government more efficient all around.

I'd also reduce government expense accounts. Yes, so and so's salary is only $150,000/year. But their expense account is significantly more than that. No Senator should have the resources to spend $70,000 on two desks (Scott Pruitt). A Senator gets between $3.5M and $5.5M per year in discretionary funding. That has to cover employee salaries, office supplies, travel expenses. They can get an additional $34,000 if they request it for additional travel expenses.

They should not be permitted to fly first class, anywhere, on the taxpayer dime. If they need a private jet to fly somewhere, they should only be reimbursed the expected cost of a business class ticket on a commercial line, and pay the rest out of his own salary. No hotel penthouse suites on the taxpayer dime. Get a deluxe room with a window like most working people get. Make sure all government travel is put on a card that collects travel points. They can use the points as bonuses if they want, for an upgrade in room type, or more legroom on the flight. But those things cannot cost taxpayer dollars.

They should not be allowed to take their employees on a vacation, on the taxpayer dime. The President should not be allowed to use taxpayer money for cross-state air travel on Air Force One for weekend golf games on a regular basis. That costs MILLIONS of dollars for each DAY that he's away. Give him a couple weeks vacation time, like most of the working people have in this country. He can take a few days here and there as he likes. Eliminate the concept of a "working vacation" in government. If you're working, you shouldn't be lounging by the pool or playing golf. If you're on vacation, you don't get to have government-specific meetings in the hotel ballroom and call it work.

Enforce the Emoluments Clause on all government officials.

That'll cut out several billion dollars in taxpayer expense every year, just doing the above.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Raise the Debt Ceiling
And don't worry "this will create tremendous growth"
We'll "grow our way out of this debt"

[CybrSage]

Raise (instead of cut) billionaires taxes so they pay their fair share. Close those IRS loop holes. We now have enough money to pay everything and pay money down on the debt annually. Simple, clean, and fair.

Being specific, what percentage of other people's money do you say it is fair to take from them, but unfair to take from you?

[MollyJo]

Exactly how much gold do we have? Whatever it is it's worth a lot more than it was a couple years ago.
All I know is nobody came to Ft Knox to check.

Louisville KY

[golfing eagles]

Last year, the federal budget was $6.9 trillion

1. Mandatory Spending was $4.2 trillion or 61% of the total budget.
Of this, Social Security was $1.46 trillion or 21.2%
Medicare was $0.97 trillion or 14.1%
Medicaid was $0.60 trillion or 8.7%
Veterans’ Benefits was $0.32 trillion or 4.6%)
Other Mandatory spending was $0.85 trillion 12.3%

2. Discretionary Spending was $1.8 trillion or 26% of total budget
This was broken down by Defense which was $0.87 trillion 12.6% of total budget and 48% of discretionary
Non-Defense (e.g., education, transportation, housing) was $0.93 trillion or 13.5% of the budget and 52% of the discretionary

3. Net Interest on Debt was $0.88 trillion or 12.8% of total budget. I believe that this is the first time that interest has exceeded the defense budget.

In 2019, the federal budget was $4.45 trillion. That means that from 2019 to 2024, the federal government spending has increased by $2.45 trillion. That is about a 55% increase in just 5 years. If we just went back to 2019 spending, we could save a lot of money.

And what percentage goes to freebies to support those that choose not to work? Not those unable to work like the disabled, but those who choose to live off the effort and production of others

[golfing eagles]

Yes, but first,
for social Security, raise FICA taxes by increasing the cap to unlimited, and if not enough, increase the percentage above $500K, to make the program solvent.

For healthcare, needs a non lobbyist review and revamping, not minor bandaids, and incur income limits
sorry @MAT, i don't have sympathy for very successful people paying extra, like a graduated system.
Increase the graduated income tax on the higher earners. . MA has a budget surplus due to taxes on millionaires!

and cry me a river about taxes on very high earners, they don't miss it, and look at the population and makeup of the income sources, and the tax can be higher without impacting them at all. .

govt spending is an easy scapegoat for unhappiness and assumed theft, but the recirculation of dollars back into the economy provides alot of invisible benefits. . .. if its alot about you, then govt spending isn't visible,

OR..... BETTER YET:

Increase FICA and taxes ACROSS THE BOARD EQUALLY. It's time we stopped punishing success and made EVERYONE pay their fair share, even if it's only a few dollars. What is fair about the current system of federal income tax where the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes and 47% pay NOTHING. I'd get rid of all child credits---why should anyone have to pay for another person's children???? Then I'd cut all these ridiculous giveaway programs in half. A few years ago I saw a news program that interviewed 2 college seniors at Stanford. The were asked what they wanted most from the American economy---Good jobs, availability of loans for graduate studies, etc. Their answer-----FREE STUFF!!!!!. Sad, but this is the mentality of many of today's youth. They also didn't know the name of the vice president at the time---acknowledging that they spent more time playing video games than learning. Mom and Dad----happy you're paying $70,000/year tuition for Super Mario Kart????

And now for an even more radical idea---amend the constitution so that only NET taxpayers get to vote----this would eliminate the political strategy of promising freebies.

[bumpa]

Being specific, what percentage of other people's money do you say it is fair to take from them, but unfair to take from you?
We have a progressive tax system. The rate of progression is flexible and arbitrary, fairness is NOT a factor.

[golfing eagles]

In New York 44% of residents are on Medicaid; in California 38% of residents are on Medicaid. The national average is 20%. A scalpel needs to be used on Medicaid spending not a butcher knife.

Based on those percentages, it would appear that a butcher knife is what is needed. When welfare was started in the 30's, it was a SUBSISTANCE living---a cold water flat and a ticket to the government surplus bread and cheese line. People would take any job just to get off "the dole". It was an embarrassment---and so it should be. Now, we have multi-generational welfare families and EBT cards that look like credit cards because recipients were "embarrassed" to be seen with food stamps at the grocery check-out. Get out the butcher knife and let embarrassment return.

[vonbork]

Would you do this with your personal budget? If you needed to save money would you cut your grocery, water, and electricity spending by the same percentage as you might cut your cruise, airline, hotel, or restaurant spending? Or, would you determine what is essential (food, water, A/C) and what is not-so-essential (cruise, hotel, restaurant) and cut the non-essential items more?

In my experience with the Army when facing a 10% reduction in force (RIF), the trouble is that every department, office, etc. believes that it is essential and operating with the minimal staff and budget and shouldn't be cut, leading to endless discussion over who is the highest priority. Those cut more than 10% then are angry with the decision maker and set out to show why they shouldn't have been cut. Cutting everyone 10% shares the pain.

[golfing eagles]

Raise (instead of cut) billionaires taxes so they pay their fair share. Close those IRS loop holes. We now have enough money to pay everything and pay money down on the debt annually. Simple, clean, and fair.

I think I heard the same thing on MSNBC. BTW, the biggest "loophole" is child care credit for low income families. Actually, that's second---the biggest loophole is the tax rate structure that allows 47% to get away with no income tax.

[golfing eagles]

Being specific, what percentage of other people's money do you say it is fair to take from them, but unfair to take from you?

Well said! The local Villages equivalent is that the developer was building paradise up until my house was built--after that it was "pure greed"