Posted on 10/20/2010 7:14:02 PM PDT by Nachum
"Tea party" activists are exhibiting a fervor for budget cuts not seen in years, pushing to slash everything from Social Security to unemployment benefits in their drive to cut the burgeoning federal debt. But while applauding their budget-cutting zeal, economists are divided over whether their prescription is good medicine for a weak economy. Some say it's reminiscent of President Hoover's drive to balance the budget during the Great Depression — and would backfire this time as well. Tea party groups and candidates, while fractious at times, are mostly united
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The only people I hear wanting to slash social security are Washington insiders.
Another kooky liberal article fantasizing and fearing the people.
Start with cutting social security and unemployment and there’ll be another wave in two years and we won’t like it much.
Gotta start with cuts that create jobs. Start with the slaughter of regulatory agencies like the EPA, dept of energy etc.
Couldn’t get past the first sentence.
Who cut 500 BILLION from social security, medicare? WAsn’t Republicans....it’s Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi, Obama and Reid and the rest of the fired democrats.
“Some say it’s reminiscent of President Hoover’s drive to balance the budget during the Great Depression — and would backfire this time as well.”
Oh they have summed up the cause of the great depression. Hogwash...How many mindless sheeple will believe it.
Everytime I see people equating higher government spending with a better economy I have to roll my eyes. Cutting government spending isn’t going to hurt the economy, there is no way it could.
We can extend unemployment benefits. One month at a time, in a separate bill each month, with each bill containing riders for other things we want. Let Zero be in the position of vetoing extensions to unemployment benefits just to thwart the will of the people.
Bingo!
Better yet, eliminate every department and agency established after 1960. The remaining ones, with the exception of the military, would have their budgets cut to 1980 levels.
Government sponsored medical plan should be eliminated, and government employees should have to live by the same rules as those in the private sector.
I agree 100%. Doing things which will create overwhelming employment opportunities, first, will lesson the stress of the change back to where we should have never left. There are so many avenues to which we can cut needless and wasteful spending, it’ll be difficult to decide where to start. The sheeple need to be made so busy they won’t have time to complain, as their self-esteem rises to unknown heights when they accomplish their tasks and become successful through their own merit......Reagan spoke very elegantly of that. It will be a very beautiful spring morning in America again.
However, the approach and especially the rational for spending cuts is critical. The rational is paying down the nation debt. Sure the cut are painful, but we are paying down the debt. (Not to be confused with the annual budget deficit).
The moral argument is to pay down the debt and not leave it to the next generation, i.e., our kids. That is unfair, wrong, and morally bankrupt.
Every cut is justified by paying down the debt. Every push-back by unions and special interest is countered with “paying down the debt.”
Concurrently, stripping rules and regulations that hamper production is essential. Enviro-weenies need to be stripped of their standing in courts. They are not true stakeholders.
Moreover, most of the compliance enforcement needs to be privatized with elected leaders setting standards. Underwriters Laboratories is an excellent example of gov’t requiring the private sector's UL seal of approval in order to sell an electrical gidget within a state.
Another example of privatized compliance would be sacking all the gov’t building inspectors and approving private building inspectors. If your house crumbles ... the individual can sue the private inspector while try suing the gov’t inspector. Actually it is much better consumer protection.
I could go on and on, but this is the general direction.
The necessary cuts are epic, huge, titanic. And that’s just to start.
But you can’t say that stuff BEFORE the election! All you can do is hint and waffle then lower the boom when you have the controls in hand.
Hate to be deceptive about it, but that is realpolitik. You can’t get elected with a promise to shoot the goose, unless EVERYBODY agrees the goose needs to be shot. And with half the population paying no income tax and countless people relying on Uncle Sugar for their monthly check, you’ll never have enough support to win the election.
Think submarines. They can’t win a toe-to-toe fight, but they are effective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.