world

Republicans promise $100 billion in spending cuts

46 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

All these proposed cuts will amount to next to nothing as far as the long term budget deficit. The brunt of the programs on the chopping block will be as mentioned, environment, and aid to people of modest means, etc. All the favorite targets of conservatives(and the programs that least affect their constituents)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what, shut down the Pentagon for a month or two? No? then...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read the list again and I'm just floored. What will be left to call America? Instead of the American Dream, America will have been a dream.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All these proposed cuts will amount to next to nothing as far as the long term budget deficit.

You are being too generous. They will amount to nothing.

I will just point out that from 1945 to into the 1970's, Americans had a very solid understanding of how economics works and were able to build the most prosperous country in world history. But then some bad Arab guys decided to raise oil prices, and the self-appointed "special" people decided they wanted a bigger piece of the pie, so they started to abandon everything that had worked up until then.

Stop listening to morons like Harold Rogers guys. What he is saying is no different from saying that humans no longer understand how to send a rocket to the moon. The solutions are common knowledge, it is the corruption that prevents them from being implemented that is the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"allowing no agency or program to be held sacred"

Including White House black-tie dinners?

"what, shut down the Pentagon for a month or two?"

You want some real cuts? Stop welfare payments for a month or two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A paltry $100 billion is nothing. With an annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion, that's the best they can do?

I read the list again and I'm just floored. What will be left to call America? Instead of the American Dream, America will have been a dream.

That is exactly the kind of thinking that got America in the terrible financial situation that it currently finds itself in. The American dream is to be free to accomplish anything that your own determination and hard work will allow without government standing in your way. It's not about the government giving you a hand to do what it thinks you should do. In most parts of the world - and increasingly in the US - the government micromanages the lives of individuals and places limits on their aspirations. I can't stand how Socialist America has become.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: I think they mean they admitted to the Patriot Act being a big sucker of public funds, even after the fact that it destroyed human rights. In other words, after the things that Democrats put forward and they cannot stop, they'll think about.

It's good they're leaving no places for their cock-roaches to hide, though. Let's see if they can put their mouths towards what they preach.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"family planning services"

Can't people take responsibility for their own families or abortions?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So they're gonna cut $100 billion out of the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama - wow, that'll leave it just $600 billion over the last budget submitted by George W. Bush!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "So they're gonna cut $100 billion out of the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama - wow, that'll leave it just $600 billion over the last budget submitted by George W. Bush!"

sigh.... no wonder Republicans get into office when they have people like you to vote! I know this is going to be a little hard to compute, but bear with me: Clinton = from deficit to surplus. gwb = from surplus to biggest deficit in history.

You want a deficit, vote Republican. You want someone to clean it up, vote Dem. Admittedly, Obama is spending far more than he should to clean up the mess he inherited from gwb after gwb blew the surplus handed to him (which Clinton had repaired from Reagan, I might add), but in this day and age clearly it takes spending to earn money later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These budget cuts are pretty shocking. The navy wants a new submarine, the airforce wants more Reapers and helicoptors, and the army wants more Humvees - all at the cost of billions that are due to be sucked out of helping people in America feed, clothe and house themselves and put toward building bits of metal that kill people.

And the conservatives are loving it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans promise $100 billion in spending cuts"

Like painting a door and thinking you've built the house.

More complete delusion from the GOP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is not new.

Republicans always want to cut spending on welfare, public transportation, planned parenthood, and other things that low income Americans NEED!

They never consider modest military costs and perhaps STOP giving the rich Americans tax cuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: "I know this is going to be a little hard to compute but bear with me"

Compute this:

The difference between George W. Bush's last budget of $3.1 trillion and Obama's 2011 budget of $3.8 trillion.

Then tell us why Obama's budget is $700 billion more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Then tell us why Obama's budget is $700 billion more."

A deep recession he inherited?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A deep recession he inherited?"

Oh, but Obama wanted so badly to inherit it. Then tell us why Bush's second budget was only $300 billion more than Clinton's "surplus" budget, and that was just after 9/11, which, contrary to liberal opinion, he didn't want to inherit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are still saying that Bush created a surplus compared to Clinton?

Seriously, you must be in denial.

Since Bush made turned the surplas that Clinton made into a HUGE deficit and the 2008 bank crisis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how in Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama's 2011 budget, the Pentagon gets a record $708 billion, compared to the warmonger Bush's last budget, in which the Pentagon got just $625 billion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a good start, but they need to cut ten times this much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how in Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama's 2011 budget, the Pentagon gets a record $708 billion, compared to the warmonger Bush's last budget, in which the Pentagon got just $625 billion.

Ouch. How are smithinjapan and sushisake3 supposed to even formulate a reply to that one???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will just point out that from 1945 to into the 1970's, Americans had a very solid understanding of how economics works and were able to build the most prosperous country in world history

Afraid you have once again been snookered by too much Lew Rockwell dot com there, professor. Life expectancy was 60 in the 40s, now it is nearly 80.Social security was designed for a nuclear family in an era when divorce was waaaay less common and the retiree lived an avaerage of 3 years after his last day at work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A $100 billion? That is like ¥10 on a ¥1000 give me a break. I can find this chump change in a vending machine.

And this Boener dude is dangerous. He scares me more than Bush did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GOP has had majority control of the house for a month. WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS they promised but knew all along they won't be able to deliver on because their sworn aim of enriching the tax haven-based bank accounts of their elitist business backers has always been more important to the GOP than helping ordinary Americans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SolidariTea, that's a ridiculous question. Are you actually bothering to keep up with news about the Afghan conflict or are you getting all your news feeds from 'fair and balanced' Faux News?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The GOP is a joke. They pledged a $100M cut to the budget. Who are they they trying to kid? It's a drop in the bucket and it's becoming clearer by the day they won't even be able to do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: the airforce wants more Reapers

Well, you have to admit, the Reapers are pretty cool. Americans are able to kill foreigners half-way across the globe and be home in time for dinner and maybe catch some 30 Rock. As an American lover I can't see why you'd be against that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

100 billion out of the operating budget? Good thinking. Don't touch the things that would really help: ss, Medicare, defense. Go after easy things that won't make a bit of difference. There's no real political will there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gutting the infrastructure and destroying jobs.

Heck of a job, republicans.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good going, Tea Party freshmen. Hold dem establishment RINO's feet to the fire.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ouch. How are smithinjapan and sushisake3 supposed to even formulate a reply to that one???

I'm neither one of them but it's not difficult to formulate a reply;

Bush's last budgeted amount $625 Billion

2008 Bush and Democratic Congress approve 161.7 Billion in additional military funding. 625+161.7 = 786.7 Billion

Obama's Budget; 708 Billion

786.7 - 708 = 78.7 Billion more spent. It's hard for those no sense fiscal management to stay on budget(Democrats and Republicans)but easy to make budget look good. Ironically one could surmise that insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan have better fiscal management measures as they are able to effectively fight against a much better financed army.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Good Jorb:

You've nailed it. What Obama's team has done is to place the spending for the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan formally on the books. The Bush administration kept that spending off the main defense budget.

Facts like this will not help posters like Sarge, who go for the knee-jerk, anti-Obama position on everything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a good start, but they need to cut ten times this much.

Agreed.

GOP has had majority control of the house for a month. WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS they promised

They didn't promise jobs, they promised to cut spending. Maybe you missed that memo. 100 Billion is a nice start, but not nearly enough after the past 2 years of Democratic rule under Obama.

You've nailed it. What Obama's team has done is to place the spending for the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan formally on the books. The Bush administration kept that spending off the main defense budget.

Thats a pretty thought, and its accurate as far as it goes. Except that even if you include the supplemental spending under Bush, he still spent less then Obama. Maybe you should check your math. Not hard to figure out.

Gutting the infrastructure and destroying jobs.

There is so much waste in the government, they could cut double that, and only scratch the surface. What would help, is getting rid of the Agricultural Department, the Education Department, the Energy department. Education should be handled by the states, the way its been for years. The way Education is working now, is that the government is taking money from the states, then giving it back. I'd rather the states just raised the money themselves, and left the federal government out of it entirely. The Agricultural department is the one involved in paying farmers not to work, and in paying to subsidize ethanol. This costs billions of dollars every year. It won't be popular to cut these things, but it really does need to be done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a victory for the Tea Party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SolidariTea:

It is a victory for the Tea Party.

No, not really. This is chump change.

I do not believe that Americans have seriously thought about how truly damaging the deficits and debt accumulating under President Obama has become to the nations economic future. Obama is on pace to rack up more debt in one presidential term than all previous presidents combined.

Unless the three big entitlement programs are reformed or better yet - privatized - the US will go under economically much as the Soviet Union did in the late 1980's.

If America does not move back towards it's capitalist free-market roots than it will continue to decline and lose all that made it great. Socialism isn't what made America great - it is what got America in this fiscal mess. I include the corporate form of Socialism in this as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not believe that Americans have seriously thought about how truly damaging the deficits and debt accumulating...

If they did, they sure wouldn't have voted for the men who: a) tripled the national debt-load and turned the USA from the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation, and b) took the federal budget from actual surpluses to very deep deficit spending.

Unless the three big entitlement programs are reformed or better yet - privatized - the US will go under economically

Let's be very clear that the reason why Reagan and W-Bush spent so freely without raising taxes was because the GOP strategists felt that was the only way to destroy the government that they thought was the enemy. That is, by spending it into oblivion through massive transfers to the nation's defense contractors.

If America does not move back towards it's capitalist free-market roots than it will continue to decline and lose all that made it great.

The "greatness" that was the America that most of us know came after the dark days of the Great Depression. Gee, free market capitalism was working just great then, wasn't it? The America that became great after that time was not a country where top executives could make several hundred times what the average employee made. It wasn't a country that was making money through gambling on financial instruments. (That was one of the things that led to the first Great Depression.)

No, the "great" America was one where skilled, blue-collar workers could live in the same neighborhood with doctors and lawyers. It was a country that actually made things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gutting the infrastructure and destroying jobs. Heck of a job, republicans."

But we were all told the Stimulus Bill of 2009, rammed thru in 5 days and in partisan secretive fashion which betrayed all the promises and rhetoric Obama's handlers had him mouth while campaigning , was needed because it would fix precisely the things you list.

And today? unemployment is 10 percent and roads are still in disprepair, even as obama pushes for high speed rail for America, to be built by Chinese companies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they did, they sure wouldn't have voted for the men who: a) tripled the national debt-load and turned the USA from the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation, and b) took the federal budget from actual surpluses to very deep deficit spending.

You would rather they vote for the men who in just 2 years spent more money then did every single administration from Washington to Reagan. Who almost singlehandeldly tripled the debt load, and the deficit. Going by your reasoning, Americans had a choice. Vote for the Dems and their disastrous policies, or vote for Dem lite. Who despite their flaws, at least they aren't Dems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You would rather they vote for the men who in just 2 years spent more money then did every single administration from Washington to Reagan

You mean like "spending" to bail out GM and Chrysler -- saving thousands upon thousands of jobs -- and getting back nearly every dollar, with interest, in the process? You mean like spending to enable out-of-work people to live and feed their families? Spending to tie unemployed people to direly needed infrastructure improvement and construction projects?

Vote for the Dems and their disastrous policies

It was the Dems "disastrous" policies that defeated the Axis powers in less than four years, ended the Great Depression, and built the massive American middle class. I understand why Republicans would shun that kind of success -- electing people who successfully turned back the clock to the economic conditions of 1929: the last time Republican policies so completely dominated the economy of the US.

The unintelligent Republican who actually believes that someone like a Palin has got what it takes to lead the nation would not know what a sane and rational policy is. Therefore, their opinions on the topic are rather worthless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

let's not forget who put us into 2 wars to begin with that started this huge budget deficit and ruined the economy. Give the new dude time to clean up the mess ( don't we wish Harry Potter is the president who can repair it all with one simple reparo charm ? ).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It was the Dems "disastrous" policies that defeated the Axis powers in less than four years, ended the Great Depression, and built the massive American middle class. "

FDR prolonged the Depression, just as Obama is deliberately prolonging this depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FDR prolonged the Depression, just as Obama is deliberately prolonging this depression

It's very easy for members of the party whose policies brought on both depressions to accuse others of prolonging them. That simply demonstrates to all just how shameless and incapable of learning they truly are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lol, yabits. Thats just shameless. You're going back 70 years to try to make the case for your Dems. Pathetic. Also totally meaningless. But hey, as long as you're willing to give all your money to your local government bureaucrat for them to spend, and of course, make sure and thank your lord and master for permitting you to continue working for him. That is after all, the end result of the policies and party you are promoting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're going back 70 years to try to make the case for your Dems.

Since the New Deal policies brought benefits that lasted over half a century, it is not strange or pathetic at all to have to go back that far to when they were initiated.

But hey, as long as you're willing to give all your money to your local government bureaucrat

Not all my money, but certainly that which I fairly owe. It's one of the duties of a loyal citizen.

make sure and thank your lord and master for permitting you to continue working for him.

Maintaining a free and prosperous democracy where people like myself can own and operate a business is certainly worth its fair share of taxes.

That is after all, the end result of the policies and party you are promoting.

It's far better than policies such as those that would start wars and not raise revenues to pay for them. That is truly shameless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not all my money, but certainly that which I fairly owe. It's one of the duties of a loyal citizen.

Sorry, but the policies you are your party are promoting, are those that say everything belongs to the state. Including you. You don't have any money unless the state decides you need it.

Maintaining a free and prosperous democracy where people like myself can own and operate a business is certainly worth its fair share of taxes.

Too bad you don't support said system. I say that based on your own statements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, but the policies you are your party are promoting, are those that say everything belongs to the state.

That is completely false. No liberal says that everything belongs to the state. We liberals do agree that taxation is needed to maintain a government that can perform its duties to "we the people." Only hysterical radicals proclaim that mainstream Democrats and liberals believe that everything belongs to the state.

Too bad you don't support said system. I say that based on your own statements.

Such systems are supported by tax revenues, and, to repeat, are certainly worth their fair share of them. To the extent that your statements are anti-tax, it is clear as to who it is that doesn't support it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

National debt now equal to the annual GDP. Cloward-Piven is gonna work.The long march through the institutions has been a success.Not even a repub majority can stop us now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites