[Bounce]

Does mainstream America really even consider what 'cutting government spending levels to 2006 levels' mean? Will they still want to drive on pot-filled interstate where the posted speed limit is 10 to 20 miles higher than the safe speeds, because of loose cement and potholes? Will they want to give up the 'pre-existing conditions' on health care? Or, allow manufacturing companies to again dump toxic wastes into landfills, streams and lakes and the air?

GOP Budget-Cutting Plan Marks Political Gamble

WASHINGTON — The Republican drive to cut spending, which begins in earnest this week, marks a political gamble that the public's hunger for smaller government will trump its appetite for benefits, subsidies and other federal support.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., calls it the "$64,000 question," and then promptly answers it.

"People will be supportive of almost any decreases in spending as long as they believe they're done in an open, equitable and fair manner," said Price, a member of the party leadership.

Democrats, already eyeing the 2012 elections, sound disbelieving.

"I'm not sure which country they're speaking to," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. "How they think that slashing, dramatically slashing important programs is going to help jump start the economy is beyond me."

The polls make clear the potential risks for both sides.

[Logaleta]

God forbid if spending was cut to a manageable level.

[thierabess]

Does mainstream America really even consider what 'cutting government spending levels to 2006 levels' mean? Will they still want to drive on pot-filled interstate where the posted speed limit is 10 to 20 miles higher than the safe speeds, because of loose cement and potholes? Will they want to give up the 'pre-existing conditions' on health care? Or, allow manufacturing companies to again dump toxic wastes into landfills, streams and lakes and the air?

GOP Budget-Cutting Plan Marks Political Gamble

WASHINGTON — The Republican drive to cut spending, which begins in earnest this week, marks a political gamble that the public's hunger for smaller government will trump its appetite for benefits, subsidies and other federal support.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., calls it the "$64,000 question," and then promptly answers it.

"People will be supportive of almost any decreases in spending as long as they believe they're done in an open, equitable and fair manner," said Price, a member of the party leadership.

Democrats, already eyeing the 2012 elections, sound disbelieving.

"I'm not sure which country they're speaking to," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. "How they think that slashing, dramatically slashing important programs is going to help jump start the economy is beyond me."

The polls make clear the potential risks for both sides.

Yeah it means getting our spending under control. Do you really know what the means? It means living within your means. Like normal people.

[Tactattcahhaw]

Its not a political gamble.

It's the last chance to preserve the financial stability of the Republic.

[Bemapayople]

how ur house budget is operated is not the same as a federal governmental budget

[tramadolwithall]

Unfortunately, making government smaller takes away jobs and is anti-stimulus, reducing consumer demand from everyone whose government check is reduced or eliminated. No individual or lobbiest wants their piece of the pie to shrink, so any reduction stirs up an anthill of resistance.

The neutral political solution would be equal cuts in everything, every department, every program, every federal salary. But thus far, both parties want to cherry-pick to gain advantage for their own- a nightmare of attacking and defending rather than simple shared sacrifice. No doubt everything government does could continue with 10% less $$$, and 9 of 10 peope in every program could do the same work. Few would quit because they lost 10% of their pay and benefits. But still, it would add to unemployment by millions.

If you can't raise taxes during a recession, can you legislate to cut jobs? I don't know.

[iH1wMOhE]

Theoretically, it would be possible to shift more spending toward state governments for infrastructure through spending less (and eventually taxing less) on the federal level.

This is consistent with standing for smaller government. There are caveats to this approach, however. Obviously, the quality of governance varies dramatically between state governments. Some states have a lot more capital to work with than others. Ironically, blue states generally have the most capital, so overall, shifting more spending toward the state level will hurt red states more than blue ones.

It should be interesting to see what happens if the GOP is able to consistently push for smaller federal government.

[thierabess]

how ur house budget is operated is not the same as a federal governmental budget

Oh really,

Quote from Obama State of the Union 2011

"But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."

[thierabess]

Unfortunately, making government smaller takes away jobs and is anti-stimulus, reducing consumer demand from everyone whose government check is reduced or eliminated. No individual or lobbiest wants their piece of the pie to shrink, so any reduction stirs up an anthill of resistance.

The neutral political solution would be equal cuts in everything, every department, every program, every federal salary. But thus far, both parties want to cherry-pick to gain advantage for their own- a nightmare of attacking and defending rather than simple shared sacrifice. No doubt everything government does could continue with 10% less $$$, and 9 of 10 peope in every program could do the same work. Few would quit because they lost 10% of their pay and benefits. But still, it would add to unemployment by millions.

If you can't raise taxes during a recession, can you legislate to cut jobs? I don't know.

I understand the GOP wants to go back to 2008 or before level of spending. I would think those are across the board cuts and probably eliminating some of the expansion of government over that last couple of years.

[Bemapayople]

then do the same, cut it all in half. I am sure the military will be able to keep our currency and our leadership viable in the years to come without the support it has grown to need. I mean u would cut off the electricity to save dough, wouldn't you?

[ulw7A8Po]

Across the board most people seem to be in favor of cutting spending. Hypothetically, where would all of you cut funding?

I am thinking (a) military and (b) waste. In the last State of the Union Obama mentioned something about a team organized to review the structure of the Federal Government and cut waste, consolidate departments, etc. I work for a private non-profit that receives hundreds of thousands in local, state and federal funding. You would be amazed at the amount of waste that occurs in agencies like this, and from my limited experience it seems that it is the same within local, state and federal government agencies.

[thierabess]

then do the same, cut it all in half. I am sure the military will be able to keep our currency and our leadership viable in the years to come without the support it has grown to need. I mean u would cut off the electricity to save dough, wouldn't you?

Maybe you should talk to Obama, I was repeating what he said, and I agree with him. We have a runaway government spending problem that you liberals don't understand.

[Bounce]

God forbid if spending was cut to a manageable level.

Your simple throw-away line has nothing to do with this topic. Try adding something useful to the debate, or go hijack another thread.

[Bounce]

Its not a political gamble.

It's the last chance to preserve the financial stability of the Republic.

Actually, it's a big gamble for both sides. If the GOP does drastically cut the budget on projects that affect public welfare and health, and this is demonstrated, it will hurt them.

If they do honest cuts, on programs that need cutting and leave necessary programs intact, it will help the GOP.

We'll see.

[thierabess]

Actually, it's a big gamble for both sides. If the GOP does drastically cut the budget on projects that affect public welfare and health, and this is demonstrated, it will hurt them.

If they do honest cuts, on programs that need cutting and leave necessary programs intact, it will help the GOP.

We'll see.

Honest cuts, whatever that means, may not be enough. According to Obama he is willing to freeze discretionary spending at today's bloated levels. In his mind that is an honest freeze, it's not even a cut. Obama is still in the borrow and spend mode. Not so with the majority of the American people, they want cuts, real cuts.

[Logaleta]

Your simple throw-away line has nothing to do with this topic. Try adding something useful to the debate, or go hijack another thread.

The entire premise of your thread is a simple throw-away line that is riddled with left wing bias.

If there were cuts in the budget why do you think there will be "pot-filled interstates"? Ohh ya because the republicans want it.

If there were cuts in the budget what makes you think that it will allow "manufacturing companies to again dump toxic wastes into landfills, streams and lakes and the air?" Ohhh ya because it would interfere with epic spending thats going on right now.

When you start a topic that is evenly balanced without the brainless left wing diatribe then you will get a proper and useful response.
Until then I will countinue to raise the bullshit flag when it is nessasary.

[thierabess]

Your simple throw-away line has nothing to do with this topic. Try adding something useful to the debate, or go hijack another thread.

When all else fails, throw out the disparaging remarks.

[O25YtQnn]

Does mainstream America really even consider what 'cutting government spending levels to 2006 levels' mean? Will they still want to drive on pot-filled interstate where the posted speed limit is 10 to 20 miles higher than the safe speeds, because of loose cement and potholes? Will they want to give up the 'pre-existing conditions' on health care? Or, allow manufacturing companies to again dump toxic wastes into landfills, streams and lakes and the air?

GOP Budget-Cutting Plan Marks Political Gamble

WASHINGTON — The Republican drive to cut spending, which begins in earnest this week, marks a political gamble that the public's hunger for smaller government will trump its appetite for benefits, subsidies and other federal support.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., calls it the "$64,000 question," and then promptly answers it.

"People will be supportive of almost any decreases in spending as long as they believe they're done in an open, equitable and fair manner," said Price, a member of the party leadership.

Democrats, already eyeing the 2012 elections, sound disbelieving.

"I'm not sure which country they're speaking to," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. "How they think that slashing, dramatically slashing important programs is going to help jump start the economy is beyond me."
The polls make clear the potential risks for both sides.

Yeah, ya take the fourty ouncer and crack pipe out of entitlement sucking "peoples" hands and the whole economy will come crashing down. uh, I mean further down.

[plalleste]

It's a finicky public: the majority says we have to rein in the spending and cut the size of the debt, but then you look at Medicare and Social Security and 80% of those polled say those must be protected from cuts.

The public wants the socialism they've got, they want it protected, but they want to see spending cuts as well.

In my mind, we should all be able to agree that corporate welfare is the easiest thing to cut, since subsidies to wealthy corporations and defense contractors cost the taxpayer far more than extending UI benefits (which are already paid for by the public in the first place).

Why it isn't a goal to get out of the Middle East sooner is baffling, since the public no longer supports the mission in Afghanistan.

I agree with the President on streamlining gov't even further when he spoke about how there essentially 5 gov't agencies that deal with sometimes one product.

My problem with Republicans is that they don't have the courage to stand for what they stand for, which is welfare for the rich. They talk mostly about symbolic bullshit cuts like freezing gov't employee pay and earmarks, which amount to a drop in the bucket. And then they've got that pipe dream of privatizing Medicare and Social Security, which are the two most popular things around that the public from all political sides of the spectrum want to protect.

It is clear that Republicans want regular people to pay the price for the misdeeds of the powerful and of the few, while most Democratic politicians are calling for cuts particularly in corporate subsidies, defense spending, and gov't waste. Meanwhile the Democrats take the more responsible fiscal approach of admitting that the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets just can't continue since some needed investments must be made in tech and innovation and job training.

Privatizing Medicare and SS, and reducing earmarks; tell me how that stimulates the economy? How does the country create jobs doing that, specifically? Putting an onus on those things more than anything will help the debt, but again, what's with the Republican notion of cutting our noses off in order to spite our faces?

England is falling right back into a double-dip recession because they've asked the public to take the fall for the mismanagement of the wealth by the wealthy. In bad times, we have to protect ordinary citizens the most, not jack them up even more.

I say let's get back to 2000 levels, when taxes and spending were at a balance with each other. Let the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets expire, cut a good trillion over ten years in corporate subsidies, streamline the gov't, end the two wars, and invest in the two or three specific areas that will help create jobs immediately.

"Across the board" sounds really nice and democratic, but to argue that ordinary people should be penalized after all they've sacrificed these last ten years and have seen a gross redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top just sounds like a very callous thing to do to them.

[hotsaucemidl]

how ur house budget is operated is not the same as a federal governmental budget

No shit. I haven't run up a $14 trillion bill on my credit cards.