jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (19 posts)

The New Cuts to Lower the Federal Deficit

  1. Barbara Kay profile image85
    Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago

    I'm curious what everyone thinks of the cuts planned to lower the deficit. In my opinion they are aiming them all at the elderly and poor. What does everyone else think?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you're right. Social Security could easily be fixed simply by eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the tax. Some of the Tea Baggers want to phase it out all together. As long as Obama is president they won't be able to pass anything too drastic because he would veto it. However, he may expect us to sign some bitter pills. Freezing federal pay checks for two years is a sign that he'll be asking for sacrifices from everyone else as well.

  2. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    are you talking about the proposals from the deficit reduction commission?  I can say that after listening to the news tonight in regard to these proposals and the senate republicans and their signed letter basically saying, we tricked you, I see the divide becoming bigger and more widening than we have seen before. the wealthy will continue to get richer while the poor and middle class will struggle even more.

  3. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    yes, for sure. when he came out on Monday and made that announcement, we knew what was behind those actions.

  4. Rochelle Frank profile image87
    Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago

    I think the proposed cuts are modest and necessary. All of the things that are being  cut are things that did not exist several years ago.
    I am old enough to remember when my parents helped their parents financially, and family members had to help each other over the rough spots by all pulling together.
    We have all become so dependent on government help that we have forgotten how to help each other.
    The truth is government is spending too much and that cannot be good for anyone.
    Yes the choices are tough, but it will only get worse if there are no cuts.

    1. Barbara Kay profile image85
      Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that some of the old ways worked much better, but how about the people that didn't have children?

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image87
        Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Families  and communities seemed to be closer, then. Extended family,(nieces, nephews cousins etc), also neighbors, friends, church groups, fraternal organizations and other groups also helped where they could. Now, most help comes from big brother. People are forgetting how to help themselves and each other. I don't think it is a good trend.

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not everyone has children and not all children are able to help even if they want to.

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image87
        Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, you are right. I answered this right above your last post.
        People need to become smarter about managing their resources and generous to those they can help. My main concern is about government becoming the major-- or even -- only source of help.
        What happens when that one source of benevolence can no longer give?
        As taxes go higher, people will have even less to save or give.

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    they're "aiming them at the elderly and poor" because most of the money GOES to the elderly and poor.

    Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, military expenditures (many people in the military are of the poor position), health care cuts (who needs gov't health care? the poor and elderly!)

    Where does the money come from to pay for these things? the rich and young!

    Whatever your take on taxes (mine is that they're theft) you must agree that money COMES from the rich and young (or out of thin air), and then goes to the poor and elderly in general.

    Thus cuts in spending will necessarily cut into poor and elderly hand outs

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Your parents must be so proud of you.

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image87
        Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My  own parents struggled a bit-- but they were happy they could help their own parents.
        They had almost nothing during the depression, but they worked  hard and saved because they didn't want us to  pay their way in their later years. (We would have been glad to do so.) They didn't want themselves or us to depend on the government.
        They were proud that we felt the same way and were even able to help others who had less.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you disagree with Evan's comments?  He seems right on to me - whether we like the concept or not, the primary recipient of the governments handouts really are the elderly and poor.  Rich people don't get much except higher tax bills than anyone else.

        The OP specifies spending cuts, not tax increases.  Those cuts must come from somewhere, and the only place to cut is from the recipients of the spending.  There are other people getting money (NASA, other research, education, etc.) but they all pale in size when compared to the two groups Evan mentions.

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and military pay and benefits do indeed take up a large percentage of our budget, but to say that the rich don't get much except higher tax bills is disingenuous. Rich people are very smart at getting out of paying taxes in perfectly legal ways - it's part of the reason they're rich. Moreover, they DO get something from the government: billions upon billions of dollars of subsidies.

          You might find these an interesting read:

          http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-C … 591840694/

          http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealth … 591842484/

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            right-o - but the cuts in question are CUTS, not reductions in loop holes.

            I stand by my statements

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "they're "aiming them at the elderly and poor" because most of the money GOES to the elderly and poor."

              On this point, the math supports Evan. Social Security & Medicaid (plus Medicaid and CHIP) amount to 41% of the federal budget. The only thing that comes close is defense - 20%. Anyone who thinks defense will take deep cuts is delusional.

              Interest on the debt is 6% Benefits & retirement for Vets & federal employees 7%. Neither of those can be touched.

              Altogether that's 73% of the federal budget. If a return to pre-Bush tax levels are off the table as well as new sources of revenue, you can't come CLOSE to balancing the budget even if you cut the remaining 27% of the budget by half.

              So if you are a senior or approaching retirement age, they are coming after YOUR benefits. Some libertarians and conservatives have been reckless enough to admit it out loud. But take consolation - this will preserve the income of the richest 2%.

              Seniors need need Medicare because the invisible  hand of the market gave them the finger. Under the old system - pre-Medicare, insurance was too expensive because old people tend to have expensive medical problems so they were a bad risk. SO we have socialized medicine for seniors and it's very popular. Sorry it will have to go.

              Social Security is - socialism - and it's very popular.  I don't like it, but your Social Security has to be paid into the system by the current employers & employees. If they 'opt out' your retirement won't be there. With every succeeding year, your entitlement will decline - Little Friskies wet cat food comes highly recommended, though.

              When seniors figure out that anti-socialistic conservatism is after THEM,  and their retirement, it will be the stake through the heart of the GOP. The electoral base of conservatism in America is the economic target of conservatism in America and it's the elderly who will be the victims of conservatism.

              Be afraid - be very afraid of people who denounce socialism. If you're over 50, be assured - it's YOUR retirement benefits they are talking about.

              1. 59
                C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That fear tactic only works for those who have replaced family with government.

                Be VERY AFRAID of people who place their trust in an ever changing entity instead of people. If you have gone through life alienating yourself with the idea that you can always fall back on the impersonal big government, your in for a rude awakening.

      3. Barbara Kay profile image85
        Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, my parents are doing really well, but yes they would be proud of me. I'm being selfish here though. I'm 59 this year and I'm thinking of myself too. I'm afraid anyone of Baby Boomer age may never get to retire until they drop dead at the job.

  6. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 5 years ago

    We must also remember that while tax cuts and balanced budgets sound great (and ARE steps in the right direction), the true solutions to our economic ailments will NEVER be reached as long as we keep spending trillions of dollars on an unmanageable overseas empire and -- more importantly -- if we continue this fraudulent fiat monetary system.

    As long as the Federal Reserve has the power to print money out of thin air, IT  WILL. We will never balance the budget as long as this continues.