When will we "spend less next year than we did this year"?

[Little-Acorn]

We've heard a lot of talk about spending cuts, how we cut 5% here, 10% there, etc. Yet somehow spending always seems to go up. What's wrong with this picture?

Problem is, politicians' (on both sides) definition of a "cut" goes something like:

"We had planned to increase spending by 14% next year. But we have to save money, so we'll increase it only 11% next year instead. There you go: A 3% cut in spending!"

This is unsustainable, of course. The resulting debt has been skyrocketing.

When will we say, "This year we spent $300 billion on such-and-such major program. But next year we will only spend $270 billion on that program. And the year after, we will spend $250 billion on it, and for the ensuing ten years we will spend exactly $230 billion per year, never a penny more." And then we actually stick to it.

THAT'S a cut. And it's what we need. Or we will wind up like Greece.

When will we do it?

[gabosaurus]

The government needs to bring in more income. Which is why taxes will rise on those who can afford it the most.

We do need to spend less next year than we did this year. Which is why the pork-laden military budget needs to be cut 25-30 percent.
Which means less outdated weapons programs, fewer military bases and few "advisers" and lobbyists.

We need to spend more on our infrastructure. Many of our roads and interstates are in deplorable condition. Fixing those will create more jobs.

[fj1200]

The government needs to bring in more income. Which is why taxes will rise on those who can afford it the most.

Rates don't determine Federal revenues, the size of GDP does.

[Abbey Marie]

Reminds me of when I tell my husband that I "saved money" because I bought something we didn't really need on sale.

[aboutime]

The government needs to bring in more income. Which is why taxes will rise on those who can afford it the most.

We do need to spend less next year than we did this year. Which is why the pork-laden military budget needs to be cut 25-30 percent.
Which means less outdated weapons programs, fewer military bases and few "advisers" and lobbyists.

We need to spend more on our infrastructure. Many of our roads and interstates are in deplorable condition. Fixing those will create more jobs.


gabby. Guess you didn't get the CBO report about how TAXING those who can afford it the most. STILL won't make any difference in the Debt.
And the Government cannot bring in more income when 23 million are unemployed, and businesses are now announcing. They are unable to hire more workers due to the Obamacare rules, and taxes.

Since you claim to be so happy, satisfied, and comfortable with your present earnings. Let us know how you would feel about that if Congress, and Mr. Obama decide to raise your taxes to the 75 or 100% range.

If you think it can't happen. Do a little investigating, and tell us how much FRANCE has decided to tax People like you.

Then imagine how happy you would claim to be, if that happened to you, here in the Newly Formed United States of Socialists.

[jafar00]

What about military budget?

If Obama wiped $600b from the military Budget alone (which would still make the USA the highest military spender), he would wipe off $2.4t from the deficit over the next 4 years, or make the country debt free in less than 27 years.

[tailfins]

What about military budget?

If Obama wiped $600b from the military Budget alone (which would still make the USA the highest military spender), he would wipe off $2.4t from the deficit over the next 4 years, or make the country debt free in less than 27 years. If cost is the issue, we could execute military strategy by USING nuclear weapons. Any power would think twice about provoking the US if they knew the result was being turned into dirty glass.

[Missileman]

What about military budget?

If Obama wiped $600b from the military Budget alone (which would still make the USA the highest military spender), he would wipe off $2.4t from the deficit over the next 4 years, or make the country debt free in less than 27 years.

Are you so naive to think if Obama gets his hands on $600 billion that he intends to pay down debt? Every other word out of his mouth is "invest". That's double-speak for SPEND MORE. Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about how much debt he's piling up.

[jafar00]

Are you so naive to think if Obama gets his hands on $600 billion that he intends to pay down debt? Every other word out of his mouth is "invest". That's double-speak for SPEND MORE. Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about how much debt he's piling up.

He could buy several European countries a year with it. Start with Greece ($280 billion) and go from there.

[Missileman]

He could buy several European countries a year with it. Start with Greece ($280 billion) and go from there.

No sensible person could conclude that buying a country full of deadbeats is a wise long-term investment...even at a bargain price. We have enough of our own without "investing" in more of them.

[aboutime]

If cost is the issue, we could execute military strategy by USING nuclear weapons. Any power would think twice about provoking the US if they knew the result was being turned into dirty glass.


Invest in Capitalism the military way. Help Walmart collect foreign property PARKING LOT ready!