PDA

View Full Version : Budget cuts? The cupbord is bare?



Peter1469
09-22-2013, 04:57 PM
Nancy Pelos (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/)i thinks that there is no way to cut our close to $4T budget.


Househttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/#) Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says Republican-led efforts to rein in government spending are pointless because there is nothing left to cut in the almost $4 trillion-a-year federal budget.


“The cupboard is bare. There’s no more cuts to make. It’s really important that people understand that,” Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Unionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/#).”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/#ixzz2ff2vnnkz
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)

Agravan
09-22-2013, 05:03 PM
Nancy Pelos (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/)i thinks that there is no way to cut our close to $4T budget.
That, and "Increasing the debt ceiling does not increase the debt." type of thinking is what got us to where we are now.

jillian
09-22-2013, 05:04 PM
Nancy Pelos (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/)i thinks that there is no way to cut our close to $4T budget.

Did she say that? Or is that another out of context statement from wash times?

i can see where she'd say it can't be done on the backs of the poor and working class like the tea people want. ... Which is true.

Peter1469
09-22-2013, 05:09 PM
Did she say that? Or is that another out of context statement from wash times?

i can see where she'd say it can't be done on the backs of the poor and working class like the tea people want. ... Which is true.

It appears to be a direct quote.

Green Arrow
09-22-2013, 05:11 PM
It can be cut, sure, but nobody in our government will agree on where to cut. Though, these days, Republicans are slowly but surely coming around to the common sense in defense cuts.

jillian
09-22-2013, 05:13 PM
It can be cut, sure, but nobody in our government will agree on where to cut. Though, these days, Republicans are slowly but surely coming around to the common sense in defense cuts.

Agreed as to the first part. I'll remain cautiously optimistic as to the second.

Green Arrow
09-22-2013, 05:15 PM
Agreed as to the first part. I'll remain cautiously optimistic as to the second.

The GOP is once again at war with itself, much like it was in the 1960s, when the Goldwater wing fought with the Rockefeller wing. In the 1960s, the Rockefeller wing ended up winning. Today, I'm not so certain the Rockefeller (today, the McCain) wing will win again. The Paul wing seems to be gaining steam and popular support.

Mainecoons
09-22-2013, 05:19 PM
I could take 40 percent out of it tomorrow. Without breaking a sweat.

Boris The Animal
09-22-2013, 07:00 PM
Agreed as to the first part. I'll remain cautiously optimistic as to the second.You mean the Leftist wet dream of totally eliminating the military?

Green Arrow
09-22-2013, 07:47 PM
You mean the Leftist wet dream of totally eliminating the military?

I am a leftist and I know lots of leftists. I've heard pretty extreme positions, but never totally eliminating the military. I think this may just be another faulty conservative assumption.

Green Arrow
09-22-2013, 07:47 PM
I could take 40 percent out of it tomorrow. Without breaking a sweat.

I don't know about 40%, at least not all at once.

AmazonTania
09-22-2013, 08:19 PM
It can be cut, sure, but nobody in our government will agree on where to cut. Though, these days, Republicans are slowly but surely coming around to the common sense in defense cuts.

Defense is the largest part of the budget, but entitlements are growing at a faster rate Y/Y. Unless you deal with this first, it doesn't really matter what you do to anything else.

zelmo1234
09-22-2013, 08:22 PM
It can be cut, sure, but nobody in our government will agree on where to cut. Though, these days, Republicans are slowly but surely coming around to the common sense in defense cuts.

Which is why the only real way to cut the government is to do it across the board, each and every line item gets cut the same amount

jillian
09-22-2013, 08:22 PM
Defense is the largest part of the budget, but entitlements are growing at a faster rate Y/Y. Unless you deal with this first, it doesn't really matter what you do to anything else.

what entitlements?

we pay for social security. that is not a gift.

and once the baby boomers are done, no more problem. if they raise the age to collect a few years that pretty much fixes it for now.

but the right has hated social security since Roosevelt. it's not like that's anything new.

Green Arrow
09-22-2013, 08:25 PM
Defense is the largest part of the budget, but entitlements are growing at a faster rate Y/Y. Unless you deal with this first, it doesn't really matter what you do to anything else.

I think both can be cut at the same time, but only if the cuts to social welfare are waste cuts, and we should be restructuring the programs at the same time. I think we can scrap our current social welfare system in favor of a cheaper, but more effective system.

Green Arrow
09-22-2013, 08:26 PM
what entitlements?

we pay for social security. that is not a gift.

and once the baby boomers are done, no more problem. if they raise the age to collect a few years that pretty much fixes it for now.

but the right has hated social security since Roosevelt. it's not like that's anything new.

I think if we're to have social security, it ought to be structured the way Thomas Paine put forth, which was the inspiration for the current system.

zelmo1234
09-22-2013, 08:26 PM
I really don't hate SS, but I do hate what it does to people, it is a terrible investment, dooming people to poverty and telling them that they are being taken care of? Is horrible in my opinion

AmazonTania
09-22-2013, 08:34 PM
what entitlements?

we pay for social security. that is not a gift.

Do you know how Social Security works?

If you do, then you understand that you're not paying for your social security. It's a transfer payment, and that's an entitlement.


and once the baby boomers are done, no more problem. if they raise the age to collect a few years that pretty much fixes it for now.

Social Security has run deficits for three consecutive years, and is now drawing out the difference from the General Budget and previous surpluses. The Cash Flow deficit is projected to be greater than the protected interests earnings in 6 years, in which the Trust Fund will stop increasing. In 15 years, the Trust fund will be completely depleted. And these are very liberal projections given by the Board of Trustees. Keep in mind that Social Security started running deficits 7 years before it was projected to start running deficits.

You'd have to do nothing short of increase the retirement age to 70 for any meaningful fix to happen. Even that is prolonging the problem, not fixing it.


but the right has hated social security since Roosevelt. it's not like that's anything new.

It yields a terrible rate of return, and you have to live to be 105 to get 100% of what you paid into Social Security. You'd have to be really inept to actually believe it's useful.

zelmo1234
09-22-2013, 08:38 PM
Do you know how Social Security works?

If you do, then you understand that you're not paying for your social security. It's a transfer payment, and that's an entitlement.



Social Security has run deficits for three consecutive years, and is now drawing out the difference from the General Budget and previous surpluses. The Cash Flow deficit is projected to be greater than the protected interests earnings in 6 years, in which the Trust Fund will stop increasing. In 15 years, the Trust fund will be completely depleted. And these are very liberal projections given by the Board of Trustees. Keep in mind that Social Security started running deficits 7 years before it was projected to start running deficits.

You'd have to do nothing short of increase the retirement age to 70 for any meaningful fix to happen. Even that is prolonging the problem, not fixing it.



It yields a terrible rate of return, and you have to live to be 105 to get 100% of what you paid into Social Security. You'd have to be really inept to actually believe it's useful.

Kid you have thing figured out! Congrats, I am sure you are gong places!

patrickt
09-23-2013, 07:19 AM
For Rep. Pelosi when we quit paying to fly her grandchildren around we had made the last possible cut. NPR. No cuts there. Planned Parenthood. No cuts there. Department of Education. No cuts there. Could we cut armed raids on dairy farms looking for raw milk? Bite you tongue. How about selling the campaign bus taxpayers bought for Barack Obama?

How about we quit giving $10,000,000 prizes for "affordable" $50 light bulbs and hundreds of millions to companies such as Solyndra? I know letting private enterprise fund companies is so unpleasant for the socialists but it worked for years and, well, socialists aren't good at it.

Of course there are cuts that can be made, in fraud if nothing else, and Rep. Pelosi and the rest of her gang are opposed to anything other than a socialist U.S. and spending us into bankruptcy. President Obama has said that if taxpayers don't fork over more money the country will be a deadbeat. Guess what, President Obama, you and yours have been deadbeats for years.

patrickt
09-23-2013, 07:28 AM
Jillian, here's an answer.
"Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi explained that there were no cuts left to make to a federal budget that runs in excess of $4 trillion each year. "The cupboard is bare," she said. "There’s no cuts to make." She claimed that everyone wanted to cut the deficit, but "you cannot have any more cuts just for the sake of cuts."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/22/Pelosi-cupboard-bare

Do you have any evidence the batty Representative Pelosi did not make those quotes?\

Of course, there are cuts to be made and it's equally clear the socialists have no intention of making them. President Obama has said that if we don't borrow more money so the liberals can spend more money then we are deadbeats. What do you call someone, President Obama, who thinks they can live on borrowed money?

The incredible stupidity of the socialists is mind-boggling and people keep saying, "They can't be that ignorant," and "surely no one will believe that crap." Well, Jillian believes it and I'll be others do, too.

Social Security is not an "investment". Liberals like the word and don't understand the concept. It's simply a tax that is used to fund the government and at a later date the government puts the worker on the dole with funds obtained from other taxpayers--and borrowing.