Where do you think budget cuts should be made?

Question

As most of you no doubt know, the members of the U. S. Senate are meeting this weekend to try and work out some kind of a proposal that can pass both Houses of Congress and will deal with our "so-called" fiscal cliff.  Once this is done (assuming they can reach some type of an agreement) we then have the problem of our national debt.  We will hit our legally established debt ceiling on Sunday morning, December 30, 2012.  From that point on, we won't be able to legally borrow any more money to help run the country, and 47 cents of every dollar we are currently spending is borrowed money (mostly borrowed from the Chinese).  We don't have a tax or income problem, we have plenty of money coming in to the Treasury every year.  But we do have an incredible spending problem.  So, if we are ever to get our financial house in order, we are going to need to get a handle on our spending, and that brings up the question of where to cut spending.  If you were the President or a member of Congress, where would you cut spending?  

Keep in mind that about half of all spending goes for Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare payments (including Federally subsidized housing), and defense spending.  Would you make cuts in these programs?  Would you raise the retirement age even more than it's already been raised to take some of the strain off of Social Security?  Or would you require Medicare beneficiaries to pay a higher premium for their coverage?  Would you cut food stamp benefits or reduce welfare payments?  Or would you move to eliminate all "pork barrel" spending (programs members of Congress get passed which provide jobs and other benefits to their constituents ONLY).  

The recent bill passed to provide relief for survivors of Hurricane Sandy is a perfect example of "pork barrel" legislation.  Approximately $30 billion in relief was needed for the survivors on the East Coast, but Congress passed a $60.4 billion bill last week which included several million dollars for folks in ALASKA to help them clean up their beaches which are being inundate with trash from the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami.  This has nothing to do with the storm on the East Coast, but this is just one of thousands of examples of how bills are loaded with "pork" for the benefit of Senators and Representatives.  If you provide goodies and benefits for your constituents, they are more likely to vote for you the next time you're running for re-election.  So, if you wanted to put an end to such "pork barrel" legislation, how would you do it?  How would you get the members of Congress to go along with your plan?  Any other thoughts about programs to cut?  I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

Ed Smurf · Accepted Answer

Everywhere. For starters Obama signed an executive order giving raises to government employees when they are borrowing over 40% of what they spend every year. Can anybody tell me this is a good idea? Since when can a President spend tax payers money by executive order?

Larry G · Answer

Welfare and start the WPA back up again .. Foreign aid to all countries and i don't care what kind of weather they have .. Cut military action in other  countries we have no business being in would help too.. You state Social security and medicare is such a big expense .. Well if you are paying the damn bill why did it cost me over five grand this year and i didn't draw a penny from either .. You folks need to sort out what a entitlement is for a fact and understand what a paid for benefit is .. If you quit giving it away to those that didn't earn it your costs would go down ..Only interest you can get our of the house or the senate is if they can somehow make a buck on the legislation .. we say Mexico is corrupt but hey look at what we have here today..

Gorkbark Porkduke Gefunken Fubar · Answer

Begin by cutting the size of the US government by 75%.  (The size of the federal government has doubled just since Obama was elected.) End all foreign wars, bring all the troops home, close at least 600 US overseas military bases and sell off the real estate.  End foreign aid.

It would be necessary to throw out ALL members of Congress, and replace them with people making no more than $60,000 a year.

While all this would only be a drop in the bucket, it would be a start.

? · Answer

enable me preface my answer by utilising asserting that all and sundry does not agree on what cuts could be made and as a result that is this variety of great deal and not something thus far is getting achieved. while governments used to make judgements in previous years technologies wasn't in contact yet now all and sundry who has a working laptop or laptop or can get to a working laptop or laptop promises enter and the solutions variety and at times variety notably. I in simple terms asked a question on YA myself attempting to be sure what the observe "cuts" skill to all and sundry thinking it would be an the two/or answer yet rather I won solutions in each single place. My view is that there is not sufficient real money to head around and a few rules are hurting the individuals and that i might like repeal of a few. i'm "not" soliciting for government workers to lose their jobs nor am I in settlement as you listed to cut back the salaries of people who're our leaders, i might, regardless of the incontrovertible fact that, get exhilaration from in the event that they might quit giving themselves extensive will advance. not even 50 years has surpassed while i actually won a month-to-month earnings of $325 right here in u . s . a . (the comparable each year income of India some years in the past). yet for that comparable activity immediately, 40 seven years later the earnings for that comparable activity is $25,000. when I replaced states 27 years in the past those with acquaintances stages right here ought to coach college and that they earned $7 an hour. So the priority with money and salaries is that individuals have complained strongly to maintain up with costs. costs on the different hand went up because of the fact human beings offered the products on credit and not considering they had the money to purchase those products, because of the fact actual their earning did not pay for those products. So the salaries of those in means are suited or according to risk a tad too lots. The "for existence" area is via the situation and not because of the fact of what they do or do not do. They do save their submit titles while they are retired and are nonetheless further in for consultation. So i don't trust you. I do have faith regardless of the incontrovertible fact that that cuts in some classes could be made the place they are actually not smart, rules ought to get replaced to convey jobs (jobs come from wealthy human beings commencing companies), some puppy initiatives could be halted (undergo in techniques the bridge to nowhere?), and a few issues must be decrease back to what we had in the previous while we had a balanced funds.

? · Answer

Eliminate all Social Security benefits for everyone except retirees and disabled adults. That accounts for 20 million of the 56 million receiving benefits.

Carlos · Answer

Social Security should be reduced because the government never guaranteed that program. As a responsible citizen, you are not supposed to rely on Social Security for financial help.

? · Answer

Cliff (Fiscal) Sedge is a member of the budgetary committee. His plan to cut taxes for the rich has met with approval but Obama is conscious of his legacy and wants history to record him a a great President. That means he can do nothing for four years.

john · Answer

Eliminate the Dept of Education.  It's an embarrassment that our students rank 25th worldwide in math and 17th in science!

Trending News

Where do you think budget cuts should be made?

8 Answers