Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/po ... ?src=twrhp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Republicans also say they would eliminate hundreds of duplicative and wasteful government programs and maintain a ban on pet spending projects by members of Congress that is now in place.

The ambitious plan, drafted principally by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Budget Committee, proposes not only to limit federal spending and reconfigure major federal health programs, but also to rewrite the tax code, cutting the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent, reducing the number of income tax brackets and eliminating what it calls a “burdensome tangle of loopholes.”

I applaud their efforts, but this is a herculean task in and of itself.

Over all, the plan is aimed at returning federal spending levels to below those of 2008, before the economic stimulus and other programs enacted by the Obama administration when it took over. It does adopt at least one element of the president’s program, noting that the document reflects $178 billion in Pentagon savings identified by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and, like his proposal, would reinvest $100 billion in other military priorities while reserving $78 billion for deficit reduction.

Just save the entire $178 billion.

Republicans say their proposal would reduce the size of the federal government to 20 percent of the overall economy by 2015 and 15 percent by 2050 while President Obama’s plan introduced this year would not hold the size of government below 23 percent of economic output.

Cleetus? If this comes even close to being enacted, can you get off your high horse about Republicans not wanting smaller government anymore?

Democrats, however, say the emerging proposal amounts to a conservative ideological manifesto showing that Republicans intend to cut benefits and programs for the nation’s retirees and neediest citizens while protecting corporate America and the wealthiest people from paying their share of taxes. They will be certain to challenge the budget plan and make its bold efforts to reshape Medicare and Medicaid — the health care programs for older Americans and the poor — a theme of their political argument to regain control of the House and hold the White House in 2012.

At some point donks are going to have to realize that entitlement programs can NOT remain untouchable. Just like Republicans are coming to the realization that Defense spending is not.

In the document, Mr. Ryan and his co-authors spread the blame for the nation’s fiscal problems to both Republicans and Democrats, saying “both parties have squandered the public’s trust.”
“The American people ended a unified Republican majority in 2006, just as they ended a unified Democratic majority last fall,” the budgeted noted. “Americans reject leaders who focus on the pursuit of power at the expense of principle. They reject empty promises from a government that cannot live within its means.”

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Any chance of any of this stuff actually happening?

SDHornet wrote:Any chance of any of this stuff actually happening?

...about as much chance as Simpson-Bowles proposal. Hate to be a cynic and I applaud Ryan's ideas, but it's about to put through the DC special interest grinder.... ...but again, I do applaud Ryan for speaking the truth...

SDHornet wrote:Any chance of any of this stuff actually happening?

Priests will stop raping kids before this happens.

It's exciting... but unlikely
As APPA already said: The DC special interest grinder will eat this alive and it will end up being a spending increase...

just watch

AAAAAAAAAANNNNNNDDDDDDDD Obama just made an unscheduled appearance at the daily press briefing, trying to spin his/donks position.

Not sure why he's so insistent on no more temporary spending bills. Hope every fucking soldier/sailor/airman/marine walks off their post and comes home the first paycheck that's missed.

So why pick 2008?

Why not 2006?

2001?


Good start - once the details are known.

but without changes to the SS revenue issue, and defense, this is only a drop in the bucket.

dbackjon wrote:So why pick 2008?

Why not 2006?

2001?


Good start - once the details are known.

but without changes to the SS revenue issue, and defense, this is only a drop in the bucket.

I agree. 2001 is a good base year.

I also agree with dawg about pulling all troops back and closing half the overseas bases. THAT'S where the defense savings can be had. Well, that and letting the others fight their own fucking wars. Enough of these proxy wars...imagine how much oil/fuel we'd save if we weren't flying thousands of sorties and fueling hundreds of warships defending the oil lanes.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:So why pick 2008?

Why not 2006?

2001?


Good start - once the details are known.

but without changes to the SS revenue issue, and defense, this is only a drop in the bucket.

I agree. 2001 is a good base year.

I also agree with dawg about pulling all troops back and closing half the overseas bases. THAT'S where the defense savings can be had. Well, that and letting the others fight their own fucking wars. Enough of these proxy wars...imagine how much oil/fuel we'd save if we weren't flying thousands of sorties and fueling hundreds of warships defending the oil lanes.

This pretty much sums it up. Well said.

SDHornet wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I agree. 2001 is a good base year.

I also agree with dawg about pulling all troops back and closing half the overseas bases. THAT'S where the defense savings can be had. Well, that and letting the others fight their own **** wars. Enough of these proxy wars...imagine how much oil/fuel we'd save if we weren't flying thousands of sorties and fueling hundreds of warships defending the oil lanes.

This pretty much sums it up. Well said.

Alfred Thayer Mahan makes it pretty clear that our economic and strategic interests are completely dependent on sea lanes of communication. That tenet is pretty much unassailable.

However, Mahan's theory primarily concerned non-fossil fuel types of commerce. We will always need to have a strong military in order to preserve the sea lanes (see the Barbary pirates... we don't want third world countries capable of holding our commercial veins hostage). That being said, the development of domestic natural resources goes hand in hand with being able to pull back from those places where we would have no interests if it were not for the oil. We could easily protect our commercial lanes with a much smaller, more streamlined Navy.

I think any proposal like this is relatively pointless unless it a) doesn't add to the deficit and b) commits to paying off the interest on the national debt +5-10% of the principal. That should be the maximum possible cost of the budget, and then negotiate the size of each pie slice (SS, medicare, defense, etc.) from there. If you want to spend more, then you need to raise taxes. Despite being pretty liberal, I'd rather see SS and medicare cut (cause they're not gonna be there when I need them anyway) rather than defense, but there's definitely stuff that can be cut in DoD.

The thing I worry about with the GOP is them using the deficit/debt as an excuse to cut the size of gov't beyond what it needs to be (and shift more of the tax burden on people who can't necessarily afford it). Obviously, with that being a party goal (I mean more gov't size than the tax burden, but you can make a case for both) they're gonna try, but I wish the parties could compromise here. And by compromise, I mean do what I want, naturally.

AZGrizFan wrote:AAAAAAAAAANNNNNNDDDDDDDD Obama just made an unscheduled appearance at the daily press briefing, trying to spin his/donks position.

Not sure why he's so insistent on no more temporary spending bills. Hope every **** soldier/sailor/airman/marine walks off their post and comes home the first paycheck that's missed.

And Barry's surprise visit to Philly for a photo op yesterday delayed my return from Arizona by a full 35 minutes, due to the holding pattern imposed on air traffic while gas-guzzling Air Force One waited to take off!

Chemhen wrote:I think any proposal like this is relatively pointless unless it a) doesn't add to the deficit and b) commits to paying off the interest on the national debt +5-10% of the principal. That should be the maximum possible cost of the budget, and then negotiate the size of each pie slice (SS, medicare, defense, etc.) from there. If you want to spend more, then you need to raise taxes. Despite being pretty liberal, I'd rather see SS and medicare cut (cause they're not gonna be there when I need them anyway) rather than defense, but there's definitely stuff that can be cut in DoD.

The thing I worry about with the GOP is them using the deficit/debt as an excuse to cut the size of gov't beyond what it needs to be (and shift more of the tax burden on people who can't necessarily afford it). Obviously, with that being a party goal (I mean more gov't size than the tax burden, but you can make a case for both) they're gonna try, but I wish the parties could compromise here. And by compromise, I mean do what I want, naturally.

What's laughable is when politicians say the budget shouldn't be "political".

I agree wholeheartedly that FIRST you pay the interest, a set portion of the principal of the national debt, you identify ALL non-critical areas to defund completely (disease research, Dept of Education, earmarks, NEA, NPR, etc., etc., etc), then EVERY department (including Defense and Entitlement programs) takes a 15-20% budget cut. ACROSS THE BOARD. Make them actually formulate a list of fucking priorities. It's what every American and every BUSINESSMAN has to do on a regular basis.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chemhen wrote:I think any proposal like this is relatively pointless unless it a) doesn't add to the deficit and b) commits to paying off the interest on the national debt +5-10% of the principal. That should be the maximum possible cost of the budget, and then negotiate the size of each pie slice (SS, medicare, defense, etc.) from there. If you want to spend more, then you need to raise taxes. Despite being pretty liberal, I'd rather see SS and medicare cut (cause they're not gonna be there when I need them anyway) rather than defense, but there's definitely stuff that can be cut in DoD.

The thing I worry about with the GOP is them using the deficit/debt as an excuse to cut the size of gov't beyond what it needs to be (and shift more of the tax burden on people who can't necessarily afford it). Obviously, with that being a party goal (I mean more gov't size than the tax burden, but you can make a case for both) they're gonna try, but I wish the parties could compromise here. And by compromise, I mean do what I want, naturally.

What's laughable is when politicians say the budget shouldn't be "political".

I agree wholeheartedly that FIRST you pay the interest, a set portion of the principal of the national debt, you identify ALL non-critical areas to defund completely (disease research, Dept of Education, earmarks, NEA, NPR, etc., etc., etc), then EVERY department (including Defense and Entitlement programs) takes a 15-20% budget cut. ACROSS THE BOARD. Make them actually formulate a list of **** priorities. It's what every American and every BUSINESSMAN has to do on a regular basis.

My soul brutha from a different mutha!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chemhen wrote:I think any proposal like this is relatively pointless unless it a) doesn't add to the deficit and b) commits to paying off the interest on the national debt +5-10% of the principal. That should be the maximum possible cost of the budget, and then negotiate the size of each pie slice (SS, medicare, defense, etc.) from there. If you want to spend more, then you need to raise taxes. Despite being pretty liberal, I'd rather see SS and medicare cut (cause they're not gonna be there when I need them anyway) rather than defense, but there's definitely stuff that can be cut in DoD.

The thing I worry about with the GOP is them using the deficit/debt as an excuse to cut the size of gov't beyond what it needs to be (and shift more of the tax burden on people who can't necessarily afford it). Obviously, with that being a party goal (I mean more gov't size than the tax burden, but you can make a case for both) they're gonna try, but I wish the parties could compromise here. And by compromise, I mean do what I want, naturally.

What's laughable is when politicians say the budget shouldn't be "political".

I agree wholeheartedly that FIRST you pay the interest, a set portion of the principal of the national debt, you identify ALL non-critical areas to defund completely (disease research, Dept of Education, earmarks, NEA, NPR, etc., etc., etc), then EVERY department (including Defense and Entitlement programs) takes a 15-20% budget cut. ACROSS THE BOARD. Make them actually formulate a list of fucking priorities. It's what every American and every BUSINESSMAN has to do on a regular basis.

I realize the media tends to over-hype the potential threat from infectious diseases, but do you really think it's a good idea to defund that type of research completely?

Grizalltheway wrote:I realize the media tends to over-hype the potential threat from infectious diseases, but do you really think it's a good idea to defund that type of research completely?

Meh...if a plague descends upon us, no need for antidotes...God will sort things out.

Heck, the murdering savage already sent one plague...fear is a good way to win over new recruits. Ghadaffi and all the best tyrants agree with His tactics.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
What's laughable is when politicians say the budget shouldn't be "political".

I agree wholeheartedly that FIRST you pay the interest, a set portion of the principal of the national debt, you identify ALL non-critical areas to defund completely (disease research, Dept of Education, earmarks, NEA, NPR, etc., etc., etc), then EVERY department (including Defense and Entitlement programs) takes a 15-20% budget cut. ACROSS THE BOARD. Make them actually formulate a list of fucking priorities. It's what every American and every BUSINESSMAN has to do on a regular basis.

I realize the media tends to over-hype the potential threat from infectious diseases, but do you really think it's a good idea to defund that type of research completely?

Not to avoid your question, but I'm talking about the money spent on cancer, alzheimers, liver disease, lyme disease, diabetes, etc. We can't (right now) afford the luxury of spending billions of dollars trying to eliminate these diseases.

http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/AboutNIDDK/Bu ... FY2010.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am pleased to present the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget request for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The FY 2010 budget includes $1,781,494,000, which is $20,156,000 more than the FY 2009 appropriation of $1,761,338,000. Complementing these funds is an additional $150,000,000 also available in FY 2010 from the special statutory Type 1 Diabetes Research Program for NIDDK.

Our Institute supports research on a wide range of common, chronic, costly, and consequential health problems that affect millions of Americans. These include diabetes and other endocrine and metabolic diseases; digestive and liver diseases; kidney and urologic diseases; blood diseases; obesity; and nutrition research

And this is just one small piece of the funding in the 2010 budget....shit's gotta go, and this AIN'T critical.

Mandatory spending: $2.009 trillion (-20.1%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security - Reduce $120 billion
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs - Reduce $114 billion
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare - Reduce $80 billion
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid - Reduce $60 billion
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt - No change
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

Total savings on Mandatory Spending - $374 billion, apply all $374 billion to National debt.

2010 Budget Discretionary Spending:

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations) - Reduce $126 billion
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services - Reduce $15 billion
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation - Reduce $15 billion
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs - Reduce $10 billion
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs - Reduce $10 billion
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development - Reduce $9 billion
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education - Eliminate, save $46.7 billion
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security - Eliminate, save $42.7 billion
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy - Double budget, spend extra $25 billion on alternative energy research
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture - Reduce $5 billion
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice - Reduce $5 billion
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Eliminate, save $18.7 billion
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce - Reduce $4 billion
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor - Reduce $4 billion
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury - Reduce $4 billion
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior - Reduce $3 billion
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency - Eliminate, save $10.5 billion
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration - Reduce $1.8 billion
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation - Eliminate, save $7.0 billion
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers - Reduce $1 billion
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank - Reduce $1 billion
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service - Eliminate, save $1.1 billion
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration - Increase budget to $5 billion
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration - No change
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies, eliminate, save $19.8 billion
$105 billion – Other - Eliminate, save $105 billion

Total Discretionary Budget Savings - $443 billion. Apply to national debt.

Eliminate earmarks, and give the President line-item veto authority.

My work here is done.

From Wikipedia:

The Office of Management and Budget estimated that the federal government made $98 billion in "improper payments" during FY2009, an increase of 38% vs. the $72 billion the prior year. This increase was due in part to effects of the financial crisis and improved methods of detection. The total included $54 billion for healthcare-related programs, 9.4% of the $573 billion spent on those programs. The government pledged to do more to combat this problem, including better analysis, auditing, and incentives.[65][66] During July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, citing approximately $110 billion in unauthorized payments of all types

Hey! Obama! Boehner! Reid!!! I found $110 billion in savings! God save the government!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
I realize the media tends to over-hype the potential threat from infectious diseases, but do you really think it's a good idea to defund that type of research completely?

Not to avoid your question, but I'm talking about the money spent on cancer, alzheimers, liver disease, lyme disease, diabetes, etc. We can't (right now) afford the luxury of spending billions of dollars trying to eliminate these diseases.

http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/AboutNIDDK/Bu ... FY2010.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am pleased to present the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget request for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The FY 2010 budget includes $1,781,494,000, which is $20,156,000 more than the FY 2009 appropriation of $1,761,338,000. Complementing these funds is an additional $150,000,000 also available in FY 2010 from the special statutory Type 1 Diabetes Research Program for NIDDK.

Our Institute supports research on a wide range of common, chronic, costly, and consequential health problems that affect millions of Americans. These include diabetes and other endocrine and metabolic diseases; digestive and liver diseases; kidney and urologic diseases; blood diseases; obesity; and nutrition research

And this is just one small piece of the funding in the 2010 budget....shit's gotta go, and this AIN'T critical.

We already have an embarrassingly low life expectancy compared to other OECD nations; defunding these things isn't going to improve that.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Not to avoid your question, but I'm talking about the money spent on cancer, alzheimers, liver disease, lyme disease, diabetes, etc. We can't (right now) afford the luxury of spending billions of dollars trying to eliminate these diseases.

http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/AboutNIDDK/Bu ... FY2010.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And this is just one small piece of the funding in the 2010 budget....shit's gotta go, and this AIN'T critical.

We already have an embarrassingly low life expectancy compared to other OECD nations; defunding these things isn't going to improve that.

We have an embarrassingly low life expectancy because we're all fucking stressed out about how we're going to pay off this massive mountain of debt that your boy Obama has piled onto in the past two years. This research is NOT critical until such time as we have the money to pay for it. Funding research to extend the average life of Americans is NOT the government's job--at least not when they're having to borrow money to do it.

Grizalltheway wrote:We already have an embarrassingly low life expectancy compared to other OECD nations; defunding these things isn't going to improve that.

If everyone would exercise daily and stop drinking sodas and eating fatty fast foods our life expectency, and quality of life, would go up dramatically. Sodas are a lot more expensive than tap water, running is free, and people can always grow a few veggies in a flower pot. No need for government to spend a lot of dough there.

And who cares what life expectency is on other areas...who wants to be a 120 year old toothless and uneducated woman from the moutains of Georgia (the country, not the state)?

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:We already have an embarrassingly low life expectancy compared to other OECD nations; defunding these things isn't going to improve that.

If everyone would exercise daily and stop drinking sodas and eating fatty fast foods our life expectency, and quality of life, would go up dramatically. Sodas are a lot more expensive than tap water, running is free, and people can always grow a few veggies in a flower pot. No need for government to spend a lot of dough there.

And who cares what life expectency is on other areas...who wants to be a 120 year old toothless and uneducated woman from the moutains of Georgia (the country, not the state)?

And yet Michelle Obama gets blasted by the Tman's of the world for encouraging (not requiring) children to eat more healthily.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
If everyone would exercise daily and stop drinking sodas and eating fatty fast foods our life expectency, and quality of life, would go up dramatically. Sodas are a lot more expensive than tap water, running is free, and people can always grow a few veggies in a flower pot. No need for government to spend a lot of dough there.

And who cares what life expectency is on other areas...who wants to be a 120 year old toothless and uneducated woman from the moutains of Georgia (the country, not the state)?

And yet Michelle Obama gets blasted by the Tman's of the world for encouraging (not requiring) children to eat more healthily.

So what. Doesn't change the fact that the research is non-essential and shouldn't be funded when running at a deficit.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
If everyone would exercise daily and stop drinking sodas and eating fatty fast foods our life expectency, and quality of life, would go up dramatically. Sodas are a lot more expensive than tap water, running is free, and people can always grow a few veggies in a flower pot. No need for government to spend a lot of dough there.

And who cares what life expectency is on other areas...who wants to be a 120 year old toothless and uneducated woman from the moutains of Georgia (the country, not the state)?

And yet Michelle Obama gets blasted by the Tman's of the world for encouraging (not requiring) children to eat more healthily.

Hey, if the government wants to encourage people to eat a healthy meal, yee-ha! But what the government usually wants to do is to "encourage" people to eat a healthy meal and then use that as an excuse to set up yet another federally funded agency, stuffed with administrators who are friends/supporters of one of the parties or the President, that gives away several hundred million dollars of other people's tax money.

Hello.

Think of all the money poor people can save on sodas. Tap water is, for the most part, relatively cheap...and unless you live near a freaking fracking place, it is generally healthier than sodas.