House cuts $50 Billion from social programs...

[DeltAlum]

Including student loans, Medicare (or is it Medicaid?) and a few other social programs.

Next will be more tax cuts.

I'm not an economist, but I still don't understand how we can reduce the deficit while supporting the war in Iraq, rebuilding after natural disasters, etc. and cutting taxes (allegedly for the wealthy).

Basic math still works, right?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by DeltAlum

Basic math still works, right?

I'm sorry...weren't you informed that new policy dictates that 2+2=|-4|, therefore 50,000,000/Bush = (P * 73)*S*Our Tax Money.

[DeltAlum]

Oh, I forgot that part.

[AlphaFrog]

Blame it on AARP.

[Rudey]

Old people, farmers, and the christian coalition are to blame.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AlphaFrog
I'm sorry...weren't you informed that new policy dictates that 2+2=|-4|

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[hoosier]

I don't know if DA ever worked for CBS, but CBS's level of fact-checking and truthfulness is all over this post.

Even CNN got it correct (and this may be my first-ever quoting of CNN):

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::
"The broader budget bill would slice almost $50 billion from the deficit by the end of the decade by curbing rapidly growing benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies. Republicans said reining in such programs whose costs spiral upward each year automatically is the first step to restoring fiscal discipline.

"This unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond our means to sustain it," said Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa.

"In passing the bill, Republicans buffed up their party's budget-cutting credentials as they try to reduce a deficit swelled by spending on the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::

There is no $50 mil or $50 bil CUT in "rapidly growing benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies."

This is only an attempt to CUT the "unchecked spending" increase in these programs. Spending will remain at the current high levels, and we'll continue to pay high taxes to support them.

No actual cuts (and it's surprising that CNN actually mentioned it - CBS never will).

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
I don't know if DA ever worked for CBS, but CBS's level of fact-checking and truthfulness is all over this post.

This is only an attempt to CUT the "unchecked spending..."

Has the White House heard about this? Seems like that's where a whole bunch of the "unchecked spending" is coming from.

No, I never worked for CBS...only at one of their affilliates in the late 70's.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Has the White House heard about this? Seems like that's where a whole bunch of the "unchecked spending" is coming from.

Unfortunately, the spending hasn't been controlled, but nothing can be spent unless Congress appropriates it, and the pres signs it.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Unfortunately, the spending hasn't been controlled, but nothing can be spent unless Congress appropriates it, and the pres signs it.

Agree.

My question still is, how can we spend more, cut taxes and expect that equation to work?

It seems counter-intuitive to me.

Yesterday, for the first time recently, several GOP Congresspersons broke from the ranks on this budget measure.

I actually asked a conservative Congressman (the party affilliation doesn't really matter, but he is a Republican) a few years ago how he could explain the budgetary dynamics of a tax cut while we were participating in an unbudgeted war.

At least he was honest and said that he didn't know the answer to that either.

[AGDee]

You don't remember the trickle down Reagnomics theory? The richer the rich and big business are, the more people they hire, the more money people make, the more money people spend and invest and the more taxes are generated by volume of people paying in rather than the percentage. Problem is, it didn't work in the 80's either.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by AGDee
You don't remember the trickle down Reagnomics theory? The richer the rich and big business are, the more people they hire, the more money people make, the more money people spend and invest and the more taxes are generated by volume of people paying in rather than the percentage. Problem is, it didn't work in the 80's either.

Facts don't support your conclusion.

The tax cuts of the Reagan era led (as expected) to MORE federal revenues and to a long period of prosperity ending near the end of Clinton's reign and the dot com collapse.

Bush's first term tax cuts have resulted again in MORE federal revenue.

Even back in Kennedy's term, his tax cuts produced MORE income.

The 1994 election and Gingrich/Republican control of Congress also helped, since they had some success in reducing expenses.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by hoosier
Facts don't support your conclusion.

The tax cuts of the Reagan era led (as expected) to MORE federal revenues and to a long period of prosperity ending near the end of Clinton's reign and the dot com collapse.

Bush's first term tax cuts have resulted again in MORE federal revenue.

Even back in Kennedy's term, his tax cuts produced MORE income.

The 1994 election and Gingrich/Republican control of Congress also helped, since they had some success in reducing expenses.

The Reagan era was from 1981-89. Then it was the Bush from 89-93. So, if the Reagan era cuts were responsible for the economic boom in the late 90's, then it took at least 10 years for it to happen. I don't know about you, but the people I pay bills to don't want to wait 10 years for their payments, they want 'em NOW. This trickle down idea doesn't work for MY budget.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AGDee
The Reagan era was from 1981-89. Then it was the Bush from 89-93. So, if the Reagan era cuts were responsible for the economic boom in the late 90's, then it took at least 10 years for it to happen. I don't know about you, but the people I pay bills to don't want to wait 10 years for their payments, they want 'em NOW. This trickle down idea doesn't work for MY budget.

You're right.

We should tax the hell out of business and have a continuous downward spiral.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AGDee
The Reagan era was from 1981-89. Then it was the Bush from 89-93. So, if the Reagan era cuts were responsible for the economic boom in the late 90's, then it took at least 10 years for it to happen. I don't know about you, but the people I pay bills to don't want to wait 10 years for their payments, they want 'em NOW. This trickle down idea doesn't work for MY budget.

With all due respect, while it's too bad that the laws of economics don't work according to your budget, it does not make the results any less real, or the laws of the science any less immutable.

Can you provide better solutions for us here? I'd love to hear them.