a proposal on the untouched entitlements

Anyone who understands our finances knows that entitlements are killing us. They take up a huge portion of our spending, and are growing - both as a portion of spending, and GDP. No one gets excited to see seniors live with less, but perhaps we should be more concerned about cheating the younger generation. Funds are being transferred from the young to old more and more, and in addition to that government programs that benefit the young are getting squeezed more and more.

What I propose is a compromise. The amount of entitlements to but cut back is unspecified, but let's say 10-15%, maybe a little more or a little *less*. Even if we cut back just 5%, that's nearly $100billion in cuts. What I propose is that we make these cuts, and half of the cuts will go to deficit/debt reduction. The other half will go to programs that are intended to help the young become self sufficient. Not unemployment funds, but college loans, grants, apprenticeships, training programs, etc. Its been nearly six years now that youth unemployment has been in the double digits - isn't it time that we ACTUALLY start investing in America's future, and not just talking about it?

 

Well, quite a plan to invest in the future, I just have a problem with the option you chose to invest with as being more essential than saying corporate aid, foreign aid or military we don't need.

 

I assume you mean the part I "chose" for cuts.

1 corporate aid: virtually non existent. Not 60% of our budget dude.
2. Foreign aid: tiny, and serves a huge purpose, as one of our strongest diplomatic tools
3. Military we don't need? Sorry dude, you're speaking from ignorance.

 

Corproate savings and misinvestment are killing us. If you have a financial problem, appropriate it from the investment in the next Windows 8.

 

And supposedly its the conservatives that are intransigent and unwilling to compromise. Hah!

 

More for the one percent of sociopaths?

 

Your assuming that people relying on government assistance have spare money. Some people on welfare can't pay their rent if they lose a $20 bill, and you want them to give up and extra 15%. They need jobs, not punishment.

This belief that all people on welfare or medicare are living large with big screen TVs is promoting the notion that they have all have excess money.

Instead of increased taxes for the wealthy, who are richer than ever, you're proposing a tax on the poor. Thanks to the generous flattening of the progressive tax code in the past 20 years, the rich are paying less of their share, and the poor are suffering for it. Why not just go back to a truly effective progressive tax, ditch the tax code and take that extra 15% from the rich?

Asking somebody with a $500/month income to give back $60 of it seems cruel. Asking a billionaire to pay $6 million doesn't seem quite so cruel... I think they can still pay their rent.

 

Well that's a first. I never thought I'd hear anyone say that spending on education for the young is "more for the one percent of sociopaths".

 

Fund it with profits from Windows 8. Microsoft failed to deliver a product profitable for society, let them pay.

 

Corporate aid is very big, as is foreign aid and the military we do not need and are all nonessential.

Instead of insulting me, prove why we need a military.

 

$50 billion for debt/deficit education? Isn't $93 billion for every Federal elected official a bit steep? You could do it for a lot cheaper with a car battery, jumper cables, and some heavy leather straps.

I think instead of cutting those programs, we should cut tax subsidies to multibillion-dollar corporations.

I'd like to see more expenditures on education of the youth of the country.

 

^_-

You mean like the oil subsidies, that are 0.01% of our budget? Yeah, that's going to make a real dent.

Again, they're small - I've already said that. If you don't think so, please get specific.

Would you be willing to compromise to reach that goal?

 

I would be willing to compromise! You can keep 5% of the military on US soil, and bring back the corporations in china to give you more stock options. It helps to know what we are talking about.

100 B. corporate aid
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/high-price-corporate-welfare

$12.9 B. Foreign aid
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/turn-foreign-aid

$680 B. Military
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cut-really-cut-military-spending

$792. B nonessential waste

$688. B. Anti-poverty programs

 

Oioioioi, you're tempting me, Troianii. There is a big, fat, bloated, around-20%-of-the-GDP-entitlement that needs to be cut, and I'm dying to address it.

 

1. You don't understand what "compromise" is, should I get a link for you? Cutting 95% of the US military on home soil is not any kind of compromise talk.
2. Cutting 95% of US military not currently deployed is just pure idiotic - so that we're clear, are you aware of the operations that our military currently does, and what kind of capability you'd be taking away by doing what you propose?
3. You're not the f***ing dumb, don't presume to know who I am.

So you think we need to completely get rid of the department of agriculture and rural development? Yeah, cause that's all corporate welfare.

So it's 0.33% of the budget. Again, you're talking about something infinitesimal, and you don't know what compromise means. Gosh, you're more intransigent than a Tea Party leader.

- - - Updated - - -

So go make a thread and address it.

 

Uh, we need a military to defend ourselves. :/ Really, wtf?

No, I'm not assuming that people on government assistance have money to spare. The fact that some people have no wiggle room in their budget, whether it come from federal aid, military pay, contracting, private work, w/e, it's not the responsibility of the government to give more. You're assuming that it is.

And who the f*** said punishment? I said shift money towards education and jobs training. If people on welfare need jobs, why would free jobs training be a punishment?

And, most importantly - thanks for trying to compromise, that's a kind of compromise and negotiation Michelle Bachmann would be proud of.

 

If you take $60 from somebody whose income is $500/month and they can't afford to eat, that's punishment.

Non-consumers tend to be punished by Capitalistas because they're deemed to be parasites.

 

So therefore you are also against ObamaCare too . . . because people are being forced to pay into it against their will whether they want it or not and can afford it or not? Nice!

 

If they're too poor to pay for Obamacare, they will get medicaid at no cost... as usual.

 

When one becomes a liberal are the mandatory-wear rose-colored glass issued to them at taxpayer's expense just like everything else that libs are involved with?

 

Still into the insults I see, a sure sign you lost this argument.

I didn't say cut just 95% from US soil, I said cut the military by 95% and bring all US troops home to US soil.

And I challenged you to prove we need a military, which you deflected and dodged. And frankly, I don't care if your god, who gives a chit who you are? LMAO!! You started a thread you can't logically defend and now your trying to deflect with BS and name calling. Its your OP, stay on topic.

Will you meet the challenge to prove why we need a military, or admit you should cut it?

I said get rid of corporate aid. Do you need a link to what corporate aid is as well? If there is a profit made in the process of insuring the anti-poverty programs remain intact which are essential, that isn't corporate aid. IF you are handing farmers billions to not grow crops which is nonessential so they can drive Cadillac SUVs, that is corporate aid. I doubt you know the difference, or you wouldn't have brought it up.

And I did the addition of the three nonessential items to cut, I gave you a total, so don't give me insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. Those three items are nonessential, and apparently you have been unable to prove otherwise.

And why should anti-poverty programs be negotiated? They have been cut while the nonessentials have been raised. THINK!!!

 

When one becomes a conservative, is it mandatory to apportion iniquitous, bitter outbursts against liberals which placates their frustration, but confers nothing to the topic?

#rightwingaggression

 

Have you a clue what the topic is on this thread?

 

1. You're not making a logical argument. I said we cut entitlement programs around 15% - I didn't say across the board evenly. You object that such a reduction would affect some beneficiaries more than others - if you were willing to compromise, you'd suggest that we protect those with more need, but instead you reject the proposal altogether.
2. Your idea of punishment is far too fluid. Not giving someone as much benefit as they once had is not a punishment - would you then say or not say that actively giving the next generation more debt is a punishment? What has the youth done to deserve punishment?
3. This is getting a little bit off subject - we're talking about the proposal and compromise - are you really unwilling to compromise? Or is your idea of compromise simply a choice from a series of proposals you (or people generally agreeing with you) have created?

Source? Because I'm pretty sure thats not true.

There's a certain point when dumb (*)(*)(*)(*) just isn't worth responding to - you've passed that point. You've demonstrated that you're completely ignorant of what our military does and of history altogether. An elementary social studies course should be sufficient to answer your question - I suggest you go and take one.

 

No, I mean the $870 billion in taxes corporations DON'T pay thanks to the myriad tax credits and tax breaks.

Sure, the entire tax code is reformed, absolutely no tax credits are allowed period, any money going out of the United States to a foreign country is taxed between 10% and 20%. The entire code is made to be truly progressive from top to bottom.

The F-35 program is immediately ended, and replaced with a combination of F-16 Block 60s, FA-18E/Fs and F-22s. The entire defense industry is overhauled so that the defense industry doesn't get the large amount of pork that they've been getting. They deliver at the cost they've quoted or they eat the difference.