Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Defense is 19.27% and welfare programs are a whopping 60.84% of the budget. Some can certainly be cut from defense... when we're not at war, but 60% for welfare programs for a country with as many opportunities as US has is quite excessive. I am certainly not saying welfare should be cut entirely, but a number that high is screaming for scrutiny to see where cuts can be made.

How about corporate welfare? It doesn't show up as an entitlement program in the budget, but is hidden in hundreds of places via tax loopholes and subsidies given to the corporations by the politicians they've bought. Are you for cutting every single penny of that? If not, can you justify the expenditure of a single penny of corporate welfare?

[randolph]

OK this is from: National Priorities.org
The Federal Budget can be divided into two types of spending according to how Congress appropriates the money: discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. Total Budget: $3.64 trillion Mandatory: $2.1 trillion Discretionary: $1.2 trillion Interest on Debt $247 billion Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2011. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
The discretionary budget is about one-third of total federal spending. The chart below indicates how discretionary spending was divided up in fiscal year 2011.
58 percent of the discretionary budget in FY 2011 is "national defense," a government-defined function area that roughly corresponds in common parlance as "military." However, this category does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military. Other types of discretionary spending include the budget for education, many health programs, and housing assistance.
In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.
In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year.

Ok, if that's the definition, then that's the definition. Still, suppose we have Obama and a democrat congress for another 4 years after 2012 and our debt has gone up another $8 trillion or so. The dollar collapses and our economy is sent into a serious tailspin. The government goes into emergency budget cutting mode. Entire departments are now being cut. I guarantee you we will still have a military, because we must have a military. But anyways, on with the technical definitions...

Originally Posted by randolph

In January 2010, President Obama announced that he would freeze spending on domestic discretionary spending for three years, with annual increases no greater than inflation after that in an effort to cut the budget deficit. The freeze did not include security-related spending for the Pentagon, foreign aid, veterans and homeland security. The proposed cuts will generate an estimated $250 billion in savings over ten years.

Yeah, after he raises the deficit several $trillion, THEN let's freeze it lol. And that's only if you believe him. As I said above, in his first budget in 2009 he called for "A New Era of Responsibility". At least he has a sense of humor right? He promised to cut the deficit to $912 billion by 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality is twice that size.

Originally Posted by randolph

In reality, the proposed "freeze" is actually a cut. The proposal caps non-security spending at $447 billion for each of the next three fiscal years. During that time, inflation will erode the purchasing power of that total, potentially requiring additional cuts in services in each successive year.

Sorry, but that does not fulfill BO's promise and frankly after raising the debt $5 trillion in the last 5 years, cutting the debt $1.3 trillion in 3 years is not adequate. What the republicans are proposing isn't even adequate. Our government needs to get serious about ELIMINATING the fucking debt! If we have to borrow to maintain our lifestyle, then something is wrong and that is unsustainable. We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... We need to stop spending 60% of our budget on welfare and focus instead on reviving our economy and putting people back to work so this country can start producing again. THAT is how we afford our lifestyle.

Nice dodge, Tracy. Bring up the welfare issue again but don't answer the question about corporate welfare.

[TracyCoxx]

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

[smc]

CORPORATE WELFARE

Some people who like to beat up on the notion of the "welfare state" target only the disadvantaged, but remain silent on corporate welfare. We have people on this site who remain silent on this topic while they insult poor people about purchasing $90 shoes and generally imply that the most vulnerable in society are indolent and don't care about their families.

The Cato Institute is a think tank in Washington that promotes "limited government" and "free markets." Here's the intro to a Cato Institute report from 2007:

The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses

by Stephen Slivinski

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute and author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government (2006).

Published on May 14, 2007

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities ? expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" ? in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.

Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

You can download the full report here:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda...

Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

Originally Posted by ila

Perhaps, Tracy, you could explain this for all of us non-American members. Your country's budget, from what I've read, is currently in the House of Representatives where, from what I understand, it won't pass without a lot of spending being taken out. How does it shutdown the government if it doesn't pass the House of Representatives? Does the budget go back to your president so that he can make requested changes or does the budget get passed on to the Senate so that it can be debated and voted upon there?

Tracy's post is disingenuous at best. By writing "neither side will give," Tracy -- as Tracy is wont to do in multiple posts throughout this site -- seeks to establish a false moral equivalency between the actions of two sides. In fact, there is only one side that would be responsible for shutting down the government, were it to happen: the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. One need only look at U.S. political history from 1992, when the Republicans last pulled this stunt, to see both what it means for the party that does it but more important the terrible toll it takes on the most vulnerable people in society.

As to ila's question, the House must pass a budget. It then goes to the Senate, where it will not likely pass. But if it does, it then goes to the president for a signature. The president has promised to veto (i.e., not sign) the budget that the House will likely pass. To override that veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which is next to impossible.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

March 4th is the deadline for congress to agree on a budget. Neither side will give so we're headed for a government shut down. Of course, the solution is simple - represent your constituents and go with the budget that cuts spending the most. But the democratics will just stick to their agenda.

The good news is shutting down the government will save a lot of $$. The bad news is BO will get credit for slashing the deficit and will be known as a frugal president... like what happened with Clinton.

In the words of Tavis Smiley: "I believe budgets are moral documents."

The US now finds itself riddled with money problems and what is the solution the Tea Party and others like yourself prefer? To balance the budget "on the backs of the poor" as Smiley said. Never mind the assistance these people need given their poverty. Let us simply attack them and their families. Let us cut funding for education and break the already near-dead unions. They are evil after all. Any man or woman who demands a fair chance, who demands good pay, any group of people who band together into a union in order to better be able to fight against exploitation is evil. These things get in the way or profit, after all.

And never mind all the money given to corporations. God forbid the government start representing the needs and aspirations of the people. The unwashed masses undoubtedly are poor because they want to be and the rich are rich because they work all those tens of thousands of hours that it takes the average worker to make anything like a CEO makes in a year. The poor like being poor don't they? There's lots of them and they've been around for a long time. That they are poor cannot possibly be caused by socioeconomic factors beyond their control, right?

It's funny--not sitcom funny, but still--it is always the working people who get put on the chopping block when things go bad. But the rich always get away. They never get blamed. The Republicans skated scot free when the economy went up thanks to the Bush tax cuts--it's really tax spending: all the money the rich get is taken from the people--thanks to the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wall Street types lie to the people and sell them bad loans--loans the people would not have to take had private industry not moved elsewhere to the planet to exploit peoples in countries without worker's rights on the one hand and frozen wages on the other, but upper management kept reaping ever more obscene rewards--but do any of these assholes go to jail? No. Instead the problem gets blamed on workers leading ever more desperate lives--their work unsatisfying, the pay atrocious, personal lives crumbling because of the financial pressure and the long work hours which get longer. And does the Republican Party, the party of unapologetic greed, receive any of the blame it so richly deserves? No. More funny: the Republicans are always talking about preserving the family and family values yet their fiscal policies have largely chipped away at the middle class, which is the same as destroying one family after another. Reagan started it. Bush perfected it.

I wonder Tracy: you were against the stimulus but are you for corporate welfare? It would be quite the case of hypocrisy if you were for corporate welfare--which includes the military industrial complex--since the stimulus and welfare are ultimately the same thing.

[randolph]

Democrats--Lets make everybody happy, regardless the cost.

Republicans--fuck the poor, lets make the rich happy, regardless the cost.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In the words of Tavis Smiley: "I believe budgets are moral documents."

The US now finds itself riddled with money problems and what is the solution the Tea Party and others like yourself prefer? To balance the budget "on the backs of the poor" as Smiley said.

I have said to you and others on this forum before, I admit capitalism isn't for everyone. But here in America, that's what we have. You never told me which country you would rather live in. So let's start with France.

Originally Posted by Tom Dibblee

How to Move to Paris with No Money
Paris is possible. You do not need a French relative or a dowry of millions. You only need ingenuity and thirst. If you?ve got those, this storied city, the matron saint of expatriation, will be yours.

This guide is for Americans with insufficient funds and little tolerance for endless preparation (or any preparation), for those who rely on that special brand of luck crossed with tenacity and patience. Here?s how to begin: Save no money. Make no plans. Just get on the plane.

Once you get there, as an American passport-holder you?ll have 90 days before your tourist visa expires, so you?d better hit the ground running.

Read the rest here: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/destination-guides/how-to-move-to-paris-with-no-money
Bon voyage.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I wonder Tracy: you were against the stimulus but are you for corporate welfare? It would be quite the case of hypocrisy if you were for corporate welfare--which includes the military industrial complex--since the stimulus and welfare are ultimately the same thing.

When did I ever say I was for corporate welfare? I think bailing out car companies and financial institutions is ok, as long as it's in the form of a loan, and they don't try and take over the company's operations. As for funding the military industry, it's not welfare if it's paying for goods and services.