Sooooo, EXACTLY how will the GOP propose to balance the budget?

#26
#26
sjt18 said:
So you wanted them to lay out legislation on the eve of their election?

I have some ideas if they want to give me a call starting with an immediate freeze of all non-hazardous federal pay which can only be lifted after all Departments are "right sized" like so many corporations have had to do.

Eliminate the Dept of Education which... does not educate a single child and replace it with block grants to states minus the previous admin costs.

For that matter, create a voucher system worth $6000 per child to the parent and save about $4000 per kid while yielding better education.

Eliminate the faith based initiatives since they are unconstitutional anyway.

Eliminate the CPB, NEA, Dept of Energy with necessary functions rolling into Interior, sell certain parks and historical sites to states or non-profits.

Then there are the positive things they can do. Create grants to support the building of nuclear plants across the country. Open up US oil fields... Make the US an energy exporter rather than importer.

Adopt a reciprical trade policy rather than a free trade policy. Countries that use slave labor should not have free access to our markets.

No it doesn't. If Obama allows the "tax cuts on the wealthy" to expire revenues will stay the same at best but more than likely fall as small businesses go out of business, raise prices to cover, stop expanding, or shrink (layoff employees).

Who specifically said that?

Really? Some have openly talked about increasing the retirement age.



No it isn't. It may require more courage than they actually have but the platform itself is VERY sustainable.
Click to expand...


These things, even if they were politically feasible (which they aren't) would not come close to balancing the budget.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
What was the Dem's plan? Becuase if they had one it was opposite day (2 yrs) in Washington. Rep's may not balance the budget but it certainly improve. One way to help balance the budget by improving thje economy as a whole which Obama with his misguided policies and Obamacare has failed to do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
hohenfelsvol said:
What was the Dem's plan? Becuase if they had one it was opposite day (2 yrs) in Washington. Rep's may not balance the budget but it certainly improve. One way to help balance the budget by improving thje economy as a whole which Obama with his misguided policies and Obamacare has failed to do.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Going off the current.

Let me try.

1) Blame Bush
2) Assuming #1 is successful, spend, spend, spend and blame the lack of change or progress on Bush and the car being in the ditch.
3) After that, blame the ignorance of the American voter in not understand why things are getting worse while you are in office.
 
#29
#29
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............................

HOW DOES ONE BALANCE A BUDGET????????????

It must be impossible if the genius Barack Obama can't figure it out.
 
#30
#30
we have a surplus at my house because we figured out what was coming in first and then allocated the funds. Of course the Dems decided to leave on break and not address the tax issue so no one is sure what the income will actually be this year
 
#32
#32
utvolpj said:
we have a surplus at my house because we figured out what was coming in first and then allocated the funds. Of course the Dems decided to leave on break and not address the tax issue so no one is sure what the income will actually be this year
Click to expand...

I think they knew they would risk even more seats if they passed anything else. Especially that.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Of those, the only one that would have a significant impact would be raising the retirement age/eliminating SS and there is no way that happens.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i assure you that raising the retirement age for SS is only a matter of time.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Listening to the newly elected folks last night, none could name a single program they would cut, much less come up with the hundreds of billions needed to even make a dent.

They want to maintain the tax cut or even cut them further. Which adds to the deficit.

They want to increase defense spending. Which adds to the deficit.

They don't seem willing to tackle entitlements, like SS or Medicare.

So after they save $10 billion by closing open positions in the VA, what will they do to account for the other $990 billion they need?

The tough thing about winning on the platfrom they ran on is that the platform is unsustainable. Haven't heard a single credible or doable plan to really even deal with the deficit, much less get to a balanced budget.
Click to expand...

You're a clown man. For real. I know you watched MSNBC all night with a Chubby everytime Sneaky smart Olbermann was shown but they interviewed one legislature from Tennessee I believe and were asking these ridiculous questions you are. They wouldn't even let her speak Matthews would just berate her anytime she tried to give an answer. It was incredibly sad and when she finally did speak and make some good points the interview ended and they changed the subject. Your act is old.

There is so much wasteful spending going on out there none of us even know about because we aren't politicians yet you expect to name EXACTLY what we would cut...
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
I think the cutting of discretionary back to 2008 levels is a good start.

Remember that between the 2 Omnibus spending bills signed by Obama, the Dems managed to raise this spending by 20% in 2 years.
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
I think the cutting of discretionary back to 2008 levels is a good start.

Remember that between the 2 Omnibus spending bills signed by Obama, the Dems managed to raise this spending by 20% in 2 years.
Click to expand...

Find a steady state tax receipts number, say 2003 levels, and grow them at reasonable CPI of 2.2 and fixed percentage cut every government outlay we have until the numbers meet. Any growth pays off debt.

Next. Sounds austere, but gov't types aren't going to try until forced. Cram it down they throats and crush the unions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
hell if we could just freeze govt spending for say 10 years we'd undoubtably have a balanced budget.
 
#40
#40
VOLinthaATL said:
You're a clown man. For real. I know you watched MSNBC all night with a Chubby everytime Sneaky smart Olbermann was shown but they interviewed one legislature from Tennessee I believe and were asking these ridiculous questions you are. They wouldn't even let her speak Matthews would just berate her anytime she tried to give an answer. It was incredibly sad and when she finally did speak and make some good points the interview ended and they changed the subject. Your act is old.

There is so much wasteful spending going on out there none of us even know about because we aren't politicians yet you expect to name EXACTLY what we would cut...
Click to expand...

LG....you have another "fan".
 
#41
#41
FYI:

National Federation of Federal Employees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The unionization of fed employees was an executive order... this should be a plank for the non D pres candidate in '12

Also LG, I may have my board liberal wrong, but weren't you the one screaming that we needed to give Obama time well after he was sworn into office (IE a year or so)? And you want them to have full details not two days after being voted here? I have to have you mistaken as you never have a double standard.
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
droski said:
i assure you that raising the retirement age for SS is only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

No doubt whatever resolution there is will include that change. My guess is that by the time I am looking to retire I will have to be 70, maybe 71, to get full benefits.


OrangeYankee said:
FYI:

National Federation of Federal Employees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The unionization of fed employees was an executive order... this should be a plank for the non D pres candidate in '12

Also LG, I may have my board liberal wrong, but weren't you the one screaming that we needed to give Obama time well after he was sworn into office (IE a year or so)? And you want them to have full details not two days after being voted here? I have to have you mistaken as you never have a double standard.
Click to expand...


Well, there is a difference. Some of the GOP, the TP-influenced folks in particular, made a balanced budget a key part, if not THE key part, of their campaign platforms.

I would have liked to think that the voters during the campaign would have pressed them for details on how they'd do that, but watching some of their campaign stops it seemed as though the promise itself, married to general anti-Obama rhetoric, was enough.

But now that they are there, the question is starkly posed: How exactly will you deliver on that key part of your platform?

Reality is most people don't bother to learn that the vast amount of spending is non-discretionary and that there is a real limit to what can be done with what's left.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Reality is most people don't bother to learn that the vast amount of spending is non-discretionary and that there is a real limit to what can be done with what's left.
Click to expand...

Not true. COLA's are not guaranteed and neither are wages or expanding federal offices by hiring more workers.

Then there is the simple fact that you can change the laws that require the non-discretionary spending. For instance, the standards to get SSI before retirement should be much higher and strictly enforced. I know able bodied people under 60 drawing a full SSI check.


I like what you just admitted though. You yourself just said that it was liberal policies that landed us in the difficult mess we are in... their use of tax dollars to buy votes from the 20's to the present may bankrupt the country. Good job.
 
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
Not true. COLA's are not guaranteed and neither are wages or expanding federal offices by hiring more workers.

Then there is the simple fact that you can change the laws that require the non-discretionary spending. For instance, the standards to get SSI before retirement should be much higher and strictly enforced. I know able bodied people under 60 drawing a full SSI check.


I like what you just admitted though. You yourself just said that it was liberal policies that landed us in the difficult mess we are in... their use of tax dollars to buy votes from the 20's to the present may bankrupt the country. Good job.
Click to expand...


I assume then that neither your parents, nor you, will ever take a dime of social security.


Right?


Right?


:unsure:
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
I assume then that neither your parents, nor you, will ever take a dime of social security.


Right?


Right?


:unsure:
Click to expand...

You make another great point. The two biggest crooks when it comes to pensions are unions and liberal politicians. Both use contributions made by honest workers to buy power from themselves.

My parents paid in enough to have retired millionaires had it been invested in a private account yielding the 50 year avg. They are drawing. What kind of control do you think I have on that?

I have absolutely no expectation of drawing it. At best, those of us who have built a retirement plan privately will get means tested (screwed) out of what we contributed. At worst, the whole thing will be bankrupted.

IT IS a ponzi scheme and someone will end up holding an empty bag. I fully anticipate being in that group and am doing my best to prepare for it.
 
#47
#47
You don't have to freeze it. Just limit it to less than GDP growth until it is balanced.

Last time the GOP tried this though the Demagogurycrats brutalized them with the help of a complicit MSM for making "draconian" cuts. They might fair better now with the help of Fox News but last time they were accused of tossing little ol' ladies out on the street and starving school children by proposing to cut spending increases from 7% to 4.5%.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top