[spinner1001]

Originally Posted 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!

“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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted 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!

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]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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)
- 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]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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