archer wrote: I should have been more specific....when I suggest we should be spending more on our citizens and less on defense, entitlements were not what I was referring to...they are their own separate issue and not in the discretionary spending that will be cut so drastically. Infrastructure is a big one....roads, bridges, etc that are deteriorating.....border security....that I think is more important than fighting foreign wars, medical research, and a whole lot of other thing that would benefit our citizens here at home more than the money expended on the military for overpriced toilet seats and jets they don't even want.
If you all don't want to cut defense spending to make life better for American citizens, then at least shift the money to better pay for the troops and follow up care when they are injured. Our defense budget has been a sacred cow for too long.
Guess where all of the money needed for that infrastructure investment, border security and follow up care is going? Funding entitlement spending and paying interest on the debt incurred to fund entitlement spending for the last half century, that's where. The current interest payments are over $250 Billion a year, money taken from the general fund that could be used for all of the things you mention. Medicare takes 45% of its annual spending away from the general fund, which amounts to well over $200 Billion annually. There's nearly half a trillion dollars right there each and every year from here on out. At least 60% of the federal spending for the last 30 years can be found in the entitlement columns. If there isn't any money for infrastructure investment, border security and follow up care for the wounded armed services members it's because the money has been frittered away in areas the federal government never should have been spending money to begin with.
LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, it's called "promote the General Welfare"... And it's a long way from "dead"... Thank god....
Now if only someone from the regressive ideology of national government crowd could explain how $16.5 Trillion worth of debt that costs us over $250 Billion annually in interest payments and prevents us from spending money on building and maintaining the national infrastructure promotes the general welfare of the union of states we might understand how acting as the central clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of the nation's charity fulfills that constitutional mission. Seeing as how any rational person would come to the conclusion that a $16.5 Trillion debt hole and $250 Billion in annual interest payments to fund those charity operations harms
rather than promotes
the general welfare of the union of states, I don't think that answer will be forthcoming anytime soon.
NPR said this morning that defense spending could decline by a trillion dollars.
The interviewed a general who says they have forecast what needs to be cut if 500 billion is allocated elsewhere, but they don't know the full ramifications yet of losing one trillion dollars in operating income. Sounds draconian, cuts not just the fat, but also the muscle to the bone.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
SS109 wrote: NPR said this morning that defense spending could decline by a trillion dollars.
The interviewed a general who says they have forecast what needs to be cut if 500 billion is allocated elsewhere, but they don't know the full ramifications yet of losing one trillion dollars in operating income. Sounds draconian, cuts not just the fat, but also the muscle to the bone.
Yeah, just like the discretionary part of the budget.
"Sounds draconian, cuts not just the fat, but also the muscle to the bone."
When you've made so much charity the mandatory part of the spending DC engages in, what is left to cut except the spending on the constitutionally proper role of the federal government that has been labeled as discretionary?
SS109 wrote: We still spend a bigger percentage of our GNP on the military than most countries. I thnk we just need to get smarter about what we spend, less billion dollar planes, more drones. Less carriers, more guided missile cruisers. Less men in uniform, more tech and special forces to fight the new asymetrical warfare. Do we really need so many heavy armor divisions still?
(Corrected ship description.)
Not most - all. We spend a much higher percentage of GNP on "defense" than any other country.
PrintSmith wrote: When you've made so much charity the mandatory part of the spending DC engages in, what is left to cut except the spending on the constitutionally proper role of the federal government that has been labeled as discretionary?
Individual welfare programs that act as a central clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of the nation's charity that are included in the self labeled "mandatory" spending items created by acts of Congress. SNAPS, Medicaid, unemployment, Section 8 housing subsidies (which are actual subsidies, not tax deductions) and all the rest of the domestic programs that are more properly left to the states in the coordinate power structure promised by the Constitution. We can toss in a few discretionary spending items as well including at least 20%, if not all, of the money spent by the Departments of Education, HHS, HUD, all of SSA, CNCS, NIH, NSF and a plethera of other non-defense agencies.
PrintSmith wrote: Individual welfare programs that act as a central clearinghouse for the collection and distribution of the nation's charity that are included in the self labeled "mandatory" spending items created by acts of Congress. SNAPS, Medicaid, unemployment, Section 8 housing subsidies (which are actual subsidies, not tax deductions) and all the rest of the domestic programs that are more properly left to the states in the coordinate power structure promised by the Constitution. We can toss in a few discretionary spending items as well including at least 20%, if not all, of the money spent by the Departments of Education, HHS, HUD, all of SSA, CNCS, NIH, NSF and a plethera of other non-defense agencies.
You are nothing if not predictable... Too easy... Just like feeding the carp at the museum at 4pm... "Here fishy, fishy..."
SS109 wrote: NPR said this morning that defense spending could decline by a trillion dollars.
The interviewed a general who says they have forecast what needs to be cut if 500 billion is allocated elsewhere, but they don't know the full ramifications yet of losing one trillion dollars in operating income. Sounds draconian, cuts not just the fat, but also the muscle to the bone.
Yeah, just like the discretionary part of the budget.
"Sounds draconian, cuts not just the fat, but also the muscle to the bone."
sorry, forgot to add smilies. I was just parodying NPR. Whenever Congress looks at making a cut to social programs, they use the terms draconian and to the bone.
They didn't use those terms when talking this morning about cuts to the military. Hopefully it would be a gradual drawdown, maybe a couple percentage points per year, with mainly big weapons programs like new planes and trimming some of the sluggard in military personnel.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
