Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: abb
Ok - so going through your list:

Government Retirees - that is 3% if you eliminate altogether. (I find it funny how people believe they are owed social security but government employees are not owed a pension).

Welfare - 14%. How far do you think this should be cut? Let's assume a 33% cut for now, that is a reduction of close to 5%.

Eliminate Alphabet Agencies - Maybe 1.5%. With those cuts we have reduced spending by less than 10%. As social security and medicare are set to explode, overall spending will increase by much more than the 10% you have identified for cuts. In short, your recommendation does nothing to end unsustainable government spending.

The longer the big ticket spending goes on unabated the more drastic the cuts need to be. My recommendation is to go after them first - then we can focus on the little stuff.

502 posted on 01/03/2011 6:36:43 AM PST by al_again2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies ]


To: al_again2010; drbuzzard

It’s a start. You two seem to think all these cuts have to happen between now and this time next year.

They don’t.

Hell, I would be tickled to death to get the revenue/expenditure lines at least headed to where they would cross sometime in the future.

I’m not against cuts to SS or whatever else it takes. But I WILL NOT countenance being first to take the hit when all the tit-suckers get a pass.

That is politically stupid and furthermore, it is fundamentally Marxist in theory.


509 posted on 01/03/2011 6:46:50 AM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson