Where’s the Beef? Please Identify Spending “Cuts” Obama has proposed to “balance” reform?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Where’s the Beef? Please Identify the Spending “Cuts” Obama has proposed to “balance” reform?

I recognize that drastic changes will be required for the US government to credibly address a seemingly out of control fiscal crisi.

I also have seen that the Republican leadership in Congress and the blogosphere have already conceded that “revenue enhancement” is required to prevent the coming disaster.

Given that the GOP has signaled acquiescence to higher taxes on investment, wages above $250k A.G.I., and retirement savings; what , then, is the other side of the equation?

Aside from Obama and Geithner’s vague suggestion of “medicare cuts” (which they vociferously denied during the previous 4 years), what are the real spending cuts the Obama administration has put on the table?

I can’t find any.

Will someone please enlighten us on the specific, department by department, spending cuts that the administration is willing to offer in exchange for “revenue enhancement?”

Please give us programs and dollars for the cuts; or, is it as I think, that there are NO cuts envisioned?

jw
edit on 30-11-2012 by jdub297 because: sp




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
A negotiation has 2 sides. Ever applied for a job where they asked YOU how much you want? Then the employer comes back and says ok here's how much I can give you...

Same here, the dems have put "something" forward. If the repubs want something else they need to ask for it.

The whole idea is that the R's want to cut the social programs but they know very well this is very unpopular and it will cost them the 2014 and 2016 elections if they ask for the cut. So the R's are demanding that the dems put those on the table so that in the next elections the R's can go to FL and other places and say "see the dems cut medicare and social security"

The R's can't have their cake and eat it too. If they wanna win something they have to risk something.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 

I've found your response curious. The President campaigned on a plan with cuts and increased taxes. As far as I can tell, he's offered to raise tax rates and spend money, but the other part of his plan has not been released. Until he does, I don't think the Democrats have offered anything. It's hardly surprising that what little he has released is not being treated seriously.

The Republicans have offered cuts to Medicare and are willing to increase tax revenues and have explained how they would do it. Now, that's "something."

If cuts are unpopular, why did Obama run on them? Of course there were vague promises of cuts with no real indication of where they would be, or how much they would be.

The Republicans have risked something, indeed Boehner is being criticized for being too willing to compromise, and is being called "spineless." The risk is already there for Republicans. It's only right that the Democrats spell out their starting position.

If the Democrats don't want to cut anything, that's Ok, but say it so the nation can hear. If they do want to cut something, what is it?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
There are no spending cuts. There are only spending increases! What these lairs call cuts is cutting the increase to less of an increase then they wanted to appease the sheep.

They continue to increase the debt ceiling so they can continue to increase the debt in the trillions. Raised tax rates and supposed cuts to deductions are a drop in the ocean and anytime they do that they actually take in less revenues as companies cut the fat so they make less hide more so they have to pay less and part of that is laying off tax payers too etc.

Also so called budget cuts are not cuts at all they are increases. Their idea of a cut is to cut some of the proposed increases IWO they will increase the budget no matter what just less then they wanted to hence why they have to increase the debt ceiling quarterly now just to keep things going. They can do nothing else or it all crashes they have painted themselves into a corner. All they are doing it prolonging the crash a little but making it that much worse when it does happen.

The way they do business is total fiscal insanity. They only pay interest on the debt because they can't make the payments and they can't even make the interest payments so they borrow more money just to make the interest payments. However this only increases the debt so whats the point? The fist thing you need to do when your stuck in a hole is to stop digging. They refuse to stop digging.

You can't borrow your way out of debt. A ten year old can understand that concept if explained to him yet here we are allowing these traitorous scumbags to borrow more money to pay interest payments on debt they cannot afford thereby increasing the debt exponentially till it crashes soon and then act like they are trying to help us and even treat them with some sort of respect because they lied to the people during election years... Sigh! They are idiots but we are even bigger idiots for allowing this utter insanity.

It's treason plain and simple Maybe it is just so utterly insane that people just cannot believe it no one is that stupid right? Apparently we are...

edit on 1-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 




Same here, the dems have put "something" forward. If the repubs want something else they need to ask for it.

Please idenfy the "cuts."

I don't thik there are any.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 


Yes, they have put "Something" forward... let me share with you what that is...

First, Obama DEMANDS unilateral and UNCONSTITUTIONAL authority to raise the debt limit with no Congressional over-sight. Next he is demanding another $50Billion in stimulus spending (He must have another contingent of campaign contributors to pay back!). Next he is demanding tax increases - massive tax increases. And finally, he has stated that once all of his demands are met, THEN he would be willing to discuss "Cuts". I put cuts in quotations because I will offer the only solid example of the cuts he is proposing.

His only proposed cut comes from Medicare/Medicaid where he insists that he will simply begin reimbursing doctors and hospitals at a lower rate. Simply stated, he is proposing "Cuts" by paying the service providers less than what they need to stay in business. Doctors and hospitals have responded to this by stating that they will either no longer accept Medicare/Medicaid patients or limit the treatment they will receive. I mean honestly, does anyone believe that these facilities will continue to offer services at a loss???

There is no "Balanced " approach! This slick, lying used-car salesman continues to fool the suckers! I'm continually astounded that so few people understand basic economic principles. He has a singular goal - and that is to make the vast majority dependent on the federal government for their survival. There is only one way to accomplish that - destruction of the existing system that allows people to care for themselves.

WE... ARE... SCREWED!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I'd also like to add that "Cuts" being proposed by both sides aren't actually even cuts, they are reductions in future increases. That's like saying, I used to spend $100 a week on strippers and I increased that amount every year by 10%. So next year, I plan on spending $110 a week on strippers. But due to the poor economy, I'm going to "CUT" 5% of that, so now I'll only spend $105 a week on strippers. STILL an INCREASE!

There are NO CUTS!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Not that I believe the numbers, but apparently they are anticipating savings in medicare to the tune of like 400 billion by raising the age from 65 to 67.

They are also anticipating 800 billion in savings by drawing down and ending the wars.

What is killer here is that they offered this up with a 1.6 trillion dollar tax hike over ten years (160 billion a year) and have asked for another 50 billion in stimulus money...yeah...that stimulus worked out really well. The only "shovel ready jobs" was someone shoveling the BS they were trying to feed us.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by jdub297
 


Not that I believe the numbers, but apparently they are anticipating savings in medicare to the tune of like 400 billion by raising the age from 65 to 67.

They are also anticipating 800 billion in savings by drawing down and ending the wars.

What is killer here is that they offered this up with a 1.6 trillion dollar tax hike over ten years (160 billion a year) and have asked for another 50 billion in stimulus money...yeah...that stimulus worked out really well. The only "shovel ready jobs" was someone shoveling the BS they were trying to feed us.


I've learned that what "They anticipate" rarely becomes reality. I've already outlined WHERE the medicare/Medicaid cuts will come from and it won't bode well for those who are on those programs.

The Iraq war is already over and the Afghanistan drawdown has been slowly happening - yet he announced his intent to keep over 10,000 troops in-country beyond 2014. $800 Billion - not a prayer!

We are deficit spending over $1.1 TRILLION a year - a $160 Billion a year increase only meets about 12% of the current deficit spending. And, as I've already explained, there are no cuts to existing spending, only cuts to future increases so it is safe to assume that spending will also increase.

What we have here is an admission by this administration to continue deficit spending as far as the eye can see and the mind can imagine!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Ha!...You nailed that one. While we might not agree on some of what I like to consider "positive indicators" on the economy in another thread...we do agree on this. "Reduced increases in spending"....what a load of sheep speak...They are still increasing spending and veiling it behind words that will make the "herds" think something is getting done. When the reality is...a deficit is a deficit is a deficit.

If we do not balance the budget through spending cuts and increased revenue...the overall national debt is going to destroy us. When the interest rates start to climb, the interest on the debt is going to devour the lion's share of incoming revenue...but no one wants to think of that...they plug their fingers in there ears and "la-la-la!...I can't hear you!"



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


Great points Jeremiah! People are so easily fooled when they hear terms like "Cuts". They're not hearing what is being said... they intend to cut the INCREASES, not the expenditure. There are NO cuts and no plan has been presented by this Administration that outlines any cuts!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Its worse than just looking for an actual cut when one remembers the massive program spending increases instituted in first year of his first administration.

So even were we to see a "cut" on paper its still not a cut when taken in context of pre-Obama expenditures. I believe he front loaded this way on purpose.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I was going to try and explain that the president offered his proposal behind closed doors and everything you're hearing now is what the GOP leadership is telling you.

You're not going to get specifics at this point in time because the GOP wants to comb through for all the bad parts they can find and then issue press releases about them.

The president has made his offer to the GOP and now they need to come up with an offer of their own rather than spending all their time complaining about how the president's proposal isn't what they wanted.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by kozmo
 


Ha!...You nailed that one. While we might not agree on some of what I like to consider "positive indicators" on the economy in another thread...we do agree on this. "Reduced increases in spending"....what a load of sheep speak...They are still increasing spending and veiling it behind words that will make the "herds" think something is getting done. When the reality is...a deficit is a deficit is a deficit.

If we do not balance the budget through spending cuts and increased revenue...the overall national debt is going to destroy us. When the interest rates start to climb, the interest on the debt is going to devour the lion's share of incoming revenue...but no one wants to think of that...they plug their fingers in there ears and "la-la-la!...I can't hear you!"


There is no balancing the budget at this point they have to borrow just to make the interest payments perpetually increasing the debt. Anything meaningful they do to fix it will collapse it anyway so they are going to run this thing till the wheels fall off. I don't know what sort of contingency plan they have but they know it is a losing battle so that is perhaps what all the government preparations and underground bunkers etc are for...

The sheep are clueless on this. The lack of interest in this thread is telling of how pervasive the sheep mentality really is...



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I never said the dems put CUTS on the table. I said they offered SOMETHING. Now the R's have to come forward and sign their name to CUT medicare, medicaid, social security, cap deductions such as mortgage, child, student loan, etc (Romney's plan) and so on.

It's a tug of war - the dems never want cuts to social programs while the R's never want cuts to corporations, military and rich. Yes you do a survey and everybody says that they are OK with GENERIC cuts. But everybody who answers those surveys thinks the cuts go from somewhere else not from their own stuff. Once you start cutting SPECIFIC things you'll see a lot more people say NO to cuts.

Recent surveys have indeed shown that Americans want to have the same social system as Europe and Canada. And it WILL happen in the next few decades, simply because the demographics are changing as was shows by this election.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


I was going to try and explain that the president offered his proposal behind closed doors and everything you're hearing now is what the GOP leadership is telling you.


You didn't know that the Republicans offered their proposal behind closed doors, and all you're hearing is what Obama is telling you? Etc., Etc., Etc.


This isn't a game, "Your turn. No, it's your turn. Mommy! He's not playing fair." Obama has put a piece of paper on the table which reads "Give me everything I want. You'll get nothing you want." The Republicans laughed, folded it into a paper airplane, and sailed it off the Washington monument. They then turned to the President and said, "Ok, that was fun, now let's get started." They're still waiting.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Best post EVER!!! Thanks Charles! Made my morning...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


If you'll recall the summer of 2011, the president offered everything the GOP wanted on a piece of paper, they laughed, folded it into a paper airplane, tossed it off the top of the capitol building then asked, 'That was fun. When do we get started?'

On both sides I keep hearing the same thing from the previous meetings between the house and the president, 'the other side got everything they wanted.' The fact is though, the president barely got anything he wanted. More precisely, democrats barely got anything they wanted, the GOP got everything they wanted. An extension to last them through the election, an extension of all the tax cuts, a near guarantee to cut government spending across the board AND the chance to blame all the 'bad stuff' on the president when it came around to the fiscal cliff.

Debt Ceiling Talks Collapse as Boehner Walks Out, July 2011

Mr. Obama said Mr. Boehner had stopped returning his calls when it became clear that rank-and-file House Republicans would not agree to raise revenues on wealthy Americans as part of a debt-reduction deal, despite Mr. Obama’s concessions on reducing future spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.



“Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense,” Mr. Obama said. “We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security..."


What made the GOP so upset during this time??

Republicans, though, said that the White House pushed for more revenue midway through the talks.


They didn't want any tax increases, at all. So the president offered them something that democrats wanted, the GOP declined. What resulted?
House approves debt deal a day before deadline, August 2011

Obama had to accept deeper spending cuts than he wanted ...
Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, got cuts he demanded without immediate tax increases...


Debt ceiling: What the deal will do, August 2011

The framework will immediately cap domestic and defense spending, resulting in cuts of $917 billion over 10 years.

The framework then calls for more deficit reduction -- between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion worth -- to be determined by the end of this year and imposed over 10 years.


Spending cuts. Lots of them.

Across-the-board cuts as trigger: If the committee deadlocks or fails to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in debt reduction, the sword of Damocles will fall on most forms of spending in the federal budget.

Specifically, as much as $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts would kick in -- evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.


Remember the super-committee? Even more spending cuts if they failed, which they did.

So the president offered spending cuts and then asked for some revenue. The GOP declined and all we got was spending cuts with more spending cuts to follow. Now, the president is moving for both spending cuts and revenue at the same time. Which is something he campaigned on and won, easily. The GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on and are now just looking like whiny little children who don't want to negotiate.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 

Dear links234,

Thanks very much for bringing those memories back, I always appreciate learning.

As we know, both sides put out their versions of what happened, each designed to make themselves look good. It's not surprising at all that Obama's version got the most air time, the press was pretty fond of him. Perhaps that's where your memories come from.

I looked around and found a lengthy piece in The New York Times analyzing both sides' activities suring the negotiations. I found it to be fascinating reading. www.nytimes.com...


So the president offered spending cuts and then asked for some revenue. The GOP declined and all we got was spending cuts with more spending cuts to follow.
That might not be a perfectly accurate memory of the events. Boehner had agreed to $800 Billion in extra revenue (tax hikes). Then the bi-partisan "Gang of Six" came in with their own idea of $2 trillion. Obama figured he couldn't just offer $800 billion, so he said to Boehner, "Hey John, remember you were going to give me $800 billion? Now you've got to give me $1.2 trillion." Boehner felt betrayed and walked. It's discussed in an objective manner in that Times article I linked.

Anyway, that was then, this is something else.

Now, the president is moving for both spending cuts and revenue at the same time.
All the OP was asking for was for someone to show him the cuts. Are you the guy that can do that?

The GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on and are now just looking like whiny little children who don't want to negotiate.
If they don't have a leg to stand on, then why worry? Obviously, you're sure they'll lose, why not just sit back and enjoy it? Oh, and if the Democrats feel they should negotiate with the Republicans, calling them "whiny little children" might not be the best opening line.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I genuinely appreciate the words and the link to the lengthy article. I'm exhausted just reading it and have zero desire to argue any points further until I can get over it.





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join