Republicans promise $100 billion in s...

Republicans promise $100 billion in spending cuts

There are 7 comments on the EDGEphiladelphia.com Business/Finance Feed story from Feb 11, 2011, titled Republicans promise $100 billion in spending cuts. In it, EDGEphiladelphia.com Business/Finance Feed reports that:

Piling cuts on top of cuts, House Republican leaders outlined an additional $26 billion in spending reductions on Thursday in hopes of placating conservatives who rejected an initial draft as too timid.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGEphiladelphia.com Business/Finance Feed.

“What is ChurchOfAnimated Bunny?”

Since: Dec 10

Infinidox - infinite paradox

#1 Feb 11, 2011
I don't believe the DoD shoud spend so much money. Why do we need so many boats, ships, bombers, fighters, tanks when we can blow up the world 10 times. Who would be foolish enough to attack us? Besides it doesn't like the conventional forces can win a ground war. We would have made more progress if we had taken all that money spent executing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Viet Nam into bribes - oh wait - I heart that happens as well in Afghanistan.

Time for the DoD to bit the bullet like everyone else except for rich folks.

Use cost effective missiles, drones and infantry robots to cut costs.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2 Feb 11, 2011
Even more is needed. Get rid of the Board of Education and the EPA. Keep going.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#3 Feb 11, 2011
None of this really matters if we don't get rid of the Federal Reserve.
Justin

Richmond, VA

#4 Feb 11, 2011
If we reduce our conventional forces to the point where they are not effective, then that leaves us with some very undesireable alternatives in the event that we should face a real threat to national security.
Our forces in Afganistan appear ineffective, because what we're really doing there is "nation building" with the military playing a supporting role. If we were to instead narrow the scope of our operations to just hunting down Bin Laden and his thugs, then the CIA and special forces could do that all by themselves. That's what we did back in the '80s; we had special forces operations all over the Middle East, Asia, and Latin American putting out little fires, and the public never even heard about it. They just went there, got the job done, and left. I think that's more effective than all this big production "War On Terror", "National Building" and "New World Order" crap.
Terrence747 wrote:
I don't believe the DoD shoud spend so much money. Why do we need so many boats, ships, bombers, fighters, tanks when we can blow up the world 10 times. Who would be foolish enough to attack us? Besides it doesn't like the conventional forces can win a ground war. We would have made more progress if we had taken all that money spent executing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Viet Nam into bribes - oh wait - I heart that happens as well in Afghanistan.
Time for the DoD to bit the bullet like everyone else except for rich folks.
Use cost effective missiles, drones and infantry robots to cut costs.
Justin

Richmond, VA

#5 Feb 11, 2011
If we want start balancing the federal budget and making a dent in the total $12,000 Billion national debt, we have to make several deep cuts; not just the 100 small cuts that we're considering now.
For example, we need to raise the retirement age for social security and medicare. We've spent all this money of advancements in medical technology, and extended the lifespam for the American public. So now it's time to reap the economic benefits by changing our concept of what it means to be too old.
We can also reduce the admistrative overhead of the federal government by consolidating agencies, staff reductions, and selling off undeeded federal buildings, land, and other property.
Could the federal government get by with only 50% of the employees they currently have? Each employee costs an average of $100K in yearly salary, training, and benefits. Maybe we can cut governement payroll by that much, but it's worth looking into; we should put it on the table for serious consideration.
Meanwhile we actually have politicians in DC who want to increase federal employment and even create entirely new agencies and mega-billion dollar programs. Well, that's just azz backward. We need to kick those folks and they're old school politics out of office. They are dinosaurs.
HeadCheese

Decatur, GA

#7 Feb 11, 2011
Tax credits to very profitable oil industry should go. Its not needed. If the oil company doesn't think the risk is worth it, in this very profitable industry, then do take the risk. We don't need tax incentives to encourage Big Oil to drill.

Dod spending on things Gates and our military say they don't want, should stop. Those spending deals happen when a politician fights to have a home town business win a contract with the Feds...creating jobs at home, but building things we shouldn't be spending on.

Farm subsidies, welfare thats been going on for years should be looked at.

Start there repubs. Let us know which home projects needing fed money can go. Start within.

You have the most control over those spending efforts.
Ho Lee Schitt

Richmond, IN

#8 Feb 11, 2011
I'm sure most of the cuts will be to programs that hepl seniors, the poor and disabled. Rethugs love to kick people while they're down like the cowards they are!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tom Latham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chuck Grassley: The Iowa GOP's savior? (Sep '14) Sep '14 bottlecap 1
News N.Y. governor abandons driver's licenses for il... (Nov '07) Sep '14 kevin 3
News Cruz Spokeswoman Says Israel Speech Fair Game a... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Asian Guy 5
News GOP Senate primary points may haunt party in fall (May '14) May '14 Rick Moss 2
News Boehner, Pelosi losing their right-hand men wit... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Cat74 5
News Rep. Latham Is Latest Lawmaker to Say He Won't ... (Dec '13) Dec '13 liberals are heros 1
News US Rep. Tom Latham won't seek re-election in 2014 (Dec '13) Dec '13 radiofreeamerica 1
More from around the web