So DL, it's obvious you are little more than a cherry picking cut and paste hack.

Looks like the NY Slimes and you have a credibility problem, huh......

 

I would start with Planned Parenthood, and work from there. The EPA is bloated, just like most government programs. You don't necessarily need to eliminate them all. Just cut there bloated budgets. I would also cut off foreign aid to countries that hate us. I would turn education back over to the states. I would cut payroll taxes, giving the American people more purchasing power. This would allow the consumer to drive the economy. I would do everything I could to incentivize companies to build in America, making it harder for them to import their products for nearly nothing. I would lead a strong initiative to bring manufacturing back to this country. I would do everything I could to repeal every last word of NAFTA. Allowing companies to move to China, and then allowing them to import back into this country for nearly nothing is absurd. It can be done. It just takes a little hard work, common sense, and sacrifice.

 

I agree with you about NAFTA, and off shoring.

Nevertheless, everyone can think of programs in the federal budget they do not like. Planned Parenthood, the Environmental Protection Agency, and foreign aid are a small part of the federal budget. Every item in the federal budget has a powerful political constituency to protect it. The largest and most expensive programs are the most popular.

 

I don't think you would have to go in and start completely eliminating popular programs. Cutting the waste would go a long way. For example allowing people to make a career choice out of government assistance should be stopped. I know it's just a small drop in the bucket, but every penny counts. They should crack down on Medicaid and Medicare fraud for example. Stop subsidizing people having children they can't afford. Why in the hell are we supplying people with cell phones? Why do we fund lavish vacations for the president? Why are we paying benefits to people that have no right to be in this country to begin with? Again most of these are small things, but when you add them together it really makes a difference.

 

Nevertheless it will not make a big enough difference. Politicians would love to make deep cuts in spending, and still provide Americans with the services they expect from the government, and of the same quality. If it could have been done it would have been done by not.

 

Probably the biggest portion of the "waste" is in their "Last year + x%" bullshit when it comes to budgeting, along with the rule "spend it or lose it". Next thing you know, everyone's buying new office furniture or handing out bonuses near the end of the budget year because they've got extra cash to blow.

Either go to Zero-based budgeting or do something like the Onc-Cent Solution, also known as "The Penny Plan". And yes, I know Politifact found some parts lacking, but at least it's a start, and you don't have to worry about people screaming about entire programs being wiped. It just means a little belt-tightening.

Think about it. How on Earth did this country manage to survive till 1913? Yes, there were other income tax measures instituted before then, but they were short-term plans meant to sunset (or Congress repealed them).

 

Taxes and budget deficits are unpopular with the voters. Nevertheless, most Americans expect the government to help them get through life. If it was possible to substantially reduce government spending without reducing the quality of government services most American insist in keeping it would have been done by now. Republican politicians who claim that is will be possible if only they are elected to office are irresponsible demagogues.

 

7 years of leftist policies have bought the US economy to a stand still for the average American. There are no new jobs being created in this country that would enable a person to live and raise a family in a middle class household. The Democrats have destroyed the middle class and put a record number of Americans on welfare at the same time. Instead of providing jobs and affordable healthcare like they promised, the American people got no jobs, endless excuses, lies and welfare from the Democrats to hold them over....

If you want to see " irresponsible demagogues" just look at the Democrats and anyone who supports them.....

 

It did not start with Obama. It will not end with Obama if a Republican is elected president in 2016

---------

The Atlantic SEP 11, 2009
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy
The final word on Bushonomics and poverty.

Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/

 

Cuts in spending is the antithesis for any Democrat. Democrats can only win elections by buying the votes of Americans too stupid or lazy to understand that self determination is far more valuable than being beholden to a government that cares nothing about them.

But you are correct; it won't happen. Government is the largest employer in every state in the US. Any candidate who advocated government spending cuts would alienate the largest single voting block in the US; they cannot win without those votes.

If a candidate were prepared to lie about their plan, were to get elected, and have the courage to truly cut government spending they would probably be assassinated.
By a postal worker. Landing on the west lawn in his gyrocopter.

 

It's 7 whole years later for Gods sake!! You can't keep blaming Bush for Obamas shortcomings! In 7 years he could've made at least one improvement, but he hasn't!!

 

"Nevertheless, most Americans expect the government to help them get through life."
That's the problem!! That's not governments function. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's the governments responsibility to make sure you have a new flat screen tv, a cell phone, and steak on the grill! If government would do what the constitution tells them to do we wouldn't be broke, but politicians learned that they can buy votes by giving out all the so called "free" goodies! Nothing is free! If the government gives you something they had to take it from somebody else first.
Why do you think democrats are pushing so hard for amnesty? Votes!! If they got 12 million more votes from illegal aliens they'd never lose another election.
We are headed full steam towards the point of no return. Americans had better wake up and take their country back before its to late!!

 

When people are able to depend on the government they are less dependent on employers in the private sector of the economy who care nothing for them.

Every single Republican presidential candidate wants to cut taxes for the rich and promises to balance the budget. Most, like Ronald Reagan in 1980, are vague about how they intend to do this.

Ben Carson is fairly explicit. He will replace the graduated income tax with a tithe. For those unfamiliar with the Bible, a tithe would be a ten percent flat tax across the board on all income. This would cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes for the working poor, and reduce tax receipts.

Carson intends to deal with reduced tax receipts by cutting every government spending program including Social Security and Medicare by ten percent.

I define "working poor" as those who earn less than half minimum wage with little or no employer funded benefits. These are waiters and waitresses, bartenders, security guards, retail sales clerks, people who work in hotels, motels, fast food restaurants, and so on. They are not, as clarise would call them, leechers and takers. They perform necessary services for little compensation.

As the people who own and run America continue to export good jobs while importing cheap labor, a growing percentage of Americans are becoming dependent on this kind of work. For most of the people who do that kind of work they are not entry level jobs. They are dead end jobs.

The plight of the working poor was articulated by a song written by Merle Travis:

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store.

"Sixteen tons" was inspired by lines the brother and father of Merle Travis wrote to him in letters. Keynesian economic policies largely ended those conditions. Because of the Republican counter revolution, they are being restored.

OK, so what would Ben Carson's plan do? First of all the working poor would get cuts in their take home pay. Then, when they are too old to work they would receive less from Social Security and Medicare.

That is, if they lived that long. If one of the working poor suffers a serious medical emergency like cancer, a heart attack, or a stroke, cannot afford treatment, and the government does not pay for treatment, that member of the working poor dies.

As far as clarise is concerned, because A is A, that is perfectly acceptable in the richest country in the world.

I notice in passing that none of my detractors have refuted my initial argument: historically most Americans have benefitted more economically under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

 

Yeah, the current financial crisis began in the mid 1990's under Clinton's watch.... In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing the GSEs’ directive, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This was done to encourage banks to make loans to people who would not qualify under normal circumstances.

With that 1995 change, the government published each bank’s lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods. These changes empowered liberal congressmen like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi as well as community organizations such as ACORN to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods even more which involved reducing mortgage loan standards even further or face backlash from those organizations private and political associates....

This put the wheels in motion for the 2008 recession, the same recession we are currently still in.....

 

That might have had something to do with it. When George the Lesser started two expensive wars he could not win, while cutting taxes for the rich, that certainly contributed.

 

And you suggest Government gives a Damn?
I submit that employers care one hell of a lot more.

Your "working poor" also are tipped employees and the national average income for this part time career is $16 to $30 K.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Food_Service_Worker/Hourly_Rate

As usual you find the darkest "facts" and scatter them about without considering other relevant aspects.
1) Few food service workers plan a career in food service. They are looking for a part time flexible schedule that pays well because they have other jobs but have time to earn more, are in school, and so on.
2) With only minimal skills and training most are able to find better paying jobs with benefits; government minion for example.

And what are the Democrats offering? Another $14 TRILLION added to the debt?

The "plight of the working poor" reference is little more than a cheap attempt to appeal to emotion; your attempt is so transparent I can muster only contempt for it.

 

Again, President Bush no more started two wars than Roosevelt started WWII. Find a more accurate slogan; this one does not further your argument.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/factsheets/taxrelief.html
President Bush Helped Americans Through Tax Relief

President Bush Trusted Americans With Their Hard-Earned Money, Providing $1.7 Trillion In Relief Through 2008

President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their own money leads to economic growth. In 2001, America was experiencing the unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust, economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and corporate accounting scandals. Fortunately, the country was able to overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush's tax relief put more money in families' pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and invest. Following the President's 2003 tax relief, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.

President Bush Signed The Largest Tax Relief In A Generation

President Bush's tax cuts provided $1.7 trillion in relief through 2008. President Bush worked with Congress to reduce the tax burden on American families and small businesses to spur savings, investment, and job creation.

In 2001, President Bush proposed and signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:

• Reduced tax rates for every American who pays income taxes, including creating a new 10 percent tax bracket
• Doubled the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2010
• Reduced the marriage penalty beginning in 2005
• Put the death tax on the road to extinction
• Increased education tax benefits
• Increased limits on IRA and 401(k) contributions and changed limits on defined benefit pension plans – which were made permanent in the Pension Protection Act of 2006

In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:

• Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
• Accelerated income tax rate reductions
• Accelerated the expansion of the 10 percent bracket
• Accelerated the increase of the child credit to $1,000
• Accelerated the reduction in the marriage penalty
• Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
• Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004

President Bush's Tax Relief Allowed Americans To Keep Trillions Of Dollars Of Their Own Money

Results of the President's tax relief were swift. The economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters. The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984. The President's tax relief reduced the marginal effective tax rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-term, higher wages for workers.

• In 2007, a family of four earning $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 thanks to the President's tax relief.

The President's tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue. From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy. The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average. Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent. Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President's second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.

The President's tax relief has shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher-income taxpayers. With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005, the latest year of available data, while increasing the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent.

President Bush Led The Response To The Financial Crisis Of 2008

This unprecedented economic growth was ended by the turbulence in the housing and credit markets, to which the President responded with bold action. President Bushaddressed the weakness in the economy early in 2008 by leading the bipartisan passage of an economic growth package that boosted consumer spending and encouraged businesses to expand, returning more than $96 billion to Americans. When the financial crisis intensified, President Bush led the passage and implementation of a rescue plan that helped address the root of the financial crisis, protected the deposits of individuals and small businesses, and helped enable credit to remain available to individuals and families. Moreover, he convened a summit with the leaders of the G-20 nations to discuss efforts to strengthen economic growth, deal with the financial crisis, reaffirm a commitment to free market principles, and lay the foundation for reform to help ensure that a similar crisis does not happen again.

• The Administration warned of the risk that government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to America's financial security beginning in 2001. President Bush's first budget warned that "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets." In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator. Despite resistance from Congress, President Bush continued to call for GSE reform until Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the additional oversight the President requested five years earlier. Unfortunately, the reform came too late to prevent systemic consequences.

 

Where do you get this assumption that it's the governments responsibility to be your own personal nanny? That is not the governments responsibility, and the founders didn't intend it to be that way.

 

The point of my original comment is that when Democrat politicians dominate the country it becomes easier for Americans to get good jobs and to take care of themselves.

 

Judging by the hundreds of posts I've read from you you believe the US should be an ever bigger nanny state than it already is. Why is that? Where do you get that is sustainable? Who pays for it? Where is it in the constitution?