Originally Posted by DaleMN

Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Yeah, Dale. Richie says the government should stay out of our lives, that everyone should take care of themselves. So that would be a good idea...eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Richie says that the government can't run programs like that anyway. And hey, if you cut just those two programs the budget would be balanced. Voila!

It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began.

SkyGuy writes: "It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began."

In other words, I want my lifetime Social Security benefits (more than I ever paid into the program) and lifetime Medicare benefits (both started from Democrat Presidents) but do not give any government assistance to needy people. Let them live in a refrigerator carton under a bridge and eat from a dumpster.

There's no sense firing shots back and forth. Both the farthest conservative right-wingers as well as the progressive left have points to make here regarding the budget deficit.

In my judgement what it boils down to is that the budget cannot be balanced very quickly. In order not to have significant negative effects on the U.S. economy and unemployment, the spending cuts have to be done over a period of time, regularly but probably over a ten-year period. Passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would be a good idea, but place it's full enactment far enough out in the future that massive spending cuts wouldn't tip us into another great depression. What's important about that is that's five elections for the House, one and a half for the Senate and two Presidents. They all have to be invested completely in such a plan, regardless of their political party.

OK then, how do we balance the budget? I'll throw out the following ideas which over a ten-year period would get us close, I think.

• Cut "discretionary" spending by about one-third. The easist way to think of this is that discretionary spending are all those things that we think of when we say "federal government".

• Cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by about one-third. This can be done a number of different ways, that's what the Congress will spend all their time arguing about. "Cutting the spending" could be everything from aggressive means testing to determine who should recieve these benefits, a significant increase in both the premiums as well as the co-pays and raising the deductibles significantly. The prescription drug program needs a massive overhaul and permitting people to purchase drugs from aywhere in the world would instill some market discipline on drug company pricing. These entitlement programs should be a safety net, NOT a way for Americans to retire comfortably and get unlimited lifetime healthcare. Much of the cost of these services must be shifted to the individual consumers.

• Cut the defense budget by abouit half. We won't be fighting any wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, so those annual savings would be a big part of the cuts. But on top of that, our military needs to be sized and equipped to fight the kinds of future wars we might encounter in the future--less aircraft carriers and submarines, less tanks, less military scattered all around the world in places that clearly they are no longer necessary, less fighters and bombers, less development of these kinds of weapons, more drones, more investment in fighting cyber-warfare, more special forces, more "right sizing" and "right equipping" of our military. Cutting the Defense budget by half will take both a meat cleaver as well as a scalpel.

• Increase tax revenues by about 25%. If the Bush tax cuts were simply permitted to expire, that would accomplish a big chunk of that. But in addition, the tax system should undergo a complete overhaul. It's not unreasonable to think that tax revenues can be increased by 25%, while at the same time tax rates can be reduced for those contributing more to the economy and society and tax "breaks" eliminated from both individuals and companies that don't need them.

So there you go. These cuts will effect every single American, some much more than others. But these are the kinds of things that will have to be done if we expect to align our spending with available tax revenues.

Originally Posted by buggyone

SkyGuy writes: "It's all too obvious that you, Dale and other like minded people like to falsely spin things out of context to try and minimize and discredit positions expressed by those on the right. I and probably most views from the right do NOT advocate the elimination of Social Security and Medicare and your spinning will NOT mask the fact that we think that spending should be controlled and not subject to bastardization of the distributions of those supposedly dedicated funds to the non-contributors that were never intended to receive a free handout when those programs began."

In other words, I want my lifetime Social Security benefits (more than I ever paid into the program) and lifetime Medicare benefits (both started from Democrat Presidents) but do not give any government assistance to needy people. Let them live in a refrigerator carton under a bridge and eat from a dumpster.

In other words? No! Don't put words into my mouth. I'll gag on the intentional spin put into them.

Social Security was not intended to give assistance to people in the way you are misleading people to believe. IMO your words were solely designed to discredit me! SS was intended to provide assistance to the elderly, their spouses & children in the event of their early death and contributors that become disabled.

To fully understand the intent of SS you would have to learn the history and evolution of social insurance from the time America was English Colonies up to the present time, and you can do that at Social Security Online if you really care to know the real truth.

I'm not going into a discussion on what's at that site partially because I couldn't possible do justice to the information it describes and because those on the left probably wouldn't believe me anyway no matter how true it is. But I will give you this excerpt from it that pretty much sums up the intention from when Roosevelt did sign it into law:

"Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. Thus it was an alternative both to reliance on welfare and to radical changes in our capitalist system. In the context of its time, it can be seen as a moderately conservative, yet activist, response to the challenges of the Depression."

In the future I'm going to be more selective on what I reply to. I don't have the time or energy to deal with messages designed with a purpose like this one was! Why I'm even surprised that you didn't suggest that I wanted to bring back the hobos!

Originally Posted by DaleMN

Richie, How about we cut it all from Social Security & Medicare? That should get widespread support.

Sounds good to me, especially get rid of Social Security! Medicare can be replaced by private insurance.

And Isreal is not the 51st State and fend for itself.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There's no sense firing shots back and forth. Both the farthest conservative right-wingers as well as the progressive left have points to make here regarding the budget deficit.

Have you looked at Rick Santorum's plan at all?

SANTORUM RELEASES "MADE IN AMERICA" PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE US ECONOMY | Rick Santorum for President

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Have you looked at Rick Santorum's plan at all?

SANTORUM RELEASES "MADE IN AMERICA" PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE US ECONOMY | Rick Santorum for President

Cannot argue with any of this

Budget never lie but people do. Like SkyGuy and as a manager for over 26 years for a large Department in a large corporation, I had to prepare a budget every year and make revisions to them at least two times during that year.

In order to prepare a budget you need to write out your plans and programs first. You need to include a rationale as to the what where why and how. You understand that if you miscalculate that you will have to live wth that mistake. So the natural tendency is to add redundancy to the budget. Your are then faced with the unpredictable (changes in market, a catastrophe, etc). Your budget then is incorporated into the coroprate budget so politics enters into your thinking....You get the picture.

The government is not a business and they don't think like businessmen. Further they are using an inexhaustible supply of funds (aka/taxes). and if they miss or misapprproiate they can't get fired. Now add to that mix the fact that lobbyist keep waving money under their noses and organization arrange quid pro quo arrangements and you can see why the budget is not worth the papers (thousand upon thousand of pages, And since there is no one hold politician feet ot the fire the misuse and fraud of these programs goes undetected since there are no built in conrols.

So I laugh everytime a politicians says he/she will.......... because they won't or can't do squat.

Referring back to the brief budgeting procees above there is step actually needed before writing plans and programs. You must ask yourself why is Item A in this budget (its purpose) and is that purpose still viable i.e. beneficial and profitable,

If you think politicians will bother with any of this I own a bridge in Brooklyn.........................

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Have you looked at Rick Santorum's plan at all?

SANTORUM RELEASES "MADE IN AMERICA" PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE US ECONOMY | Rick Santorum for President

This plan is excellent and it's understandable.

Unfortunately, 98% of the democrats I know do not vote based on clearly articulated substance like that. They vote straight party line, and on the "charismatic" personality, and they say that's what's important to them.