The Congressional Budget Office figures that "mandatory spending" accounts for 59% of the 2009 budget, with defense spending another 19% and interest payments of 5%, leaving "other discretionary" funds at 17% of the total.

Philip Klein at the American Spectator says that if you read the GOP's Pledge to America and follow what candidates are saying on the stump, that means 83% of $3.5 TRILLION will not be touched. He says,  "Mandatory spending is primarily comprised of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but also of programs such as veteran's benefits, unemployment insurance and food stamps."

Good luck on that debt reduction, unless and until Republicans stop being nice guys and start getting into the gore-and-gristle of hacking cuts in the federal spending-pig.

QuoteSo if you eliminate mandatory spending, that takes nearly $2.1 trillion off of the table. That leaves discretionary spending. But if the defense budget is off limits, there's another $655 billion that's untouchable. And unless the GOP is for defaulting on the national debt, they'd have to support spending $187 billion on interest payments. That leaves just $582 billion left that's theoretically touchable. Republicans have pledged to save $100 billion by returning spending to pre-stimulus levels. But even if they were willing to go further, and get rid of the entire $582 billion in discretionary spending, it still wouldn't even get at half the deficit -- which stood at over $1.4 trillion in 2009. 

What to do? Klein asks. "Without addressing mandatory spending, there's no hope of bringing down our debt and restraining the growth of government. And Republicans don't deserve to be seen as the party of smaller government until they begin to acknowledge (and grapple with) this simple fact."

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/20/republicans-fiscal-fantasyland

===

I can see big problems for the GOP if it tries to de-fund any of the existing federal money-pits like EPA or either one of the DOEs. There are also hundreds of useless commissions (and full-fledged agencies) paying millions in "honorariums" to people appointed to fulfill specific left-wing purposes. We won't see many of those disbanded, just the conservative ones.

Britain intends to lay off enough government workers to save 131 million pounds per year. France is in a state of open riot at the idea of any reductions in their federal spending. And here in America we are facing national debt under the communist trash Obama which will bring this nation to deliberate ruin. Wow. Ain't all that liberal spending just wonderful, for all three nations?

Can you predict with complete assurance that they'll do the right thing --- finally? Or do you bet on status quo, because the go-along polo-shirt GOP gave up pretending they were conservative, a long time ago, and no amount of Tea Party populism will alter that fact.

Oh crap. You've just alienated a good chunk of the 'Just Give US The Reins' crowd.

We've been on this path since at least the 30s, and that 800 pound gorilla in the room is now closer to 3000 pounds. Lotsa luck in placing that mutha on a diet.

I've heard the current Republican Leadership say that if we are able to roll back our funding to the 2006 Levels that the deficit will be gone.  While no responsible person is talking about elimination of all social programs, rolling back translates to enormous cuts in all social programs and will be a real challenge.

I believe that while the new majority is on a roll, some of the social spending programs which have no revenue stream (such as the payroll taxes for social security and medicare) ought to be examined with a sharp eye (and sharp knife) for their cost versus benefit, this includes our government's involvement in both Fanny May and Freddie Mac, underwriting mortgages and our government's involvement in HUD!

Quote from: wally on October 21, 2010, 06:01:16 AM
I've heard the current Republican Leadership say that if we are able to roll back our funding to the 2006 Levels that the deficit will be gone.  While no responsible person is talking about elimination of all social programs, rolling back translates to enormous cuts in all social programs and will be a real challenge.

Military spending for big-ticket items like airplane fleets or replacement ships is one area "sensible" people go short-term nuts. Aircraft carriers and larger vessels costing billions? Hey, let's put it on hold---and watch costs skyrocket thanks to cost-of-living and other inflationary spiraling.

On the other hand, we have mothballed fleets of ships costing millions to maintain, which are not being refitted to meet modern needs. We pay millions for a fleet we will probably never use. (Make that hopefully. The counterargument is that we needed ships at the START of our involvement in WWII and didn't have enough, so this fleet will be that "modern" answer.)

Eisenhower correctly warned about the military-industrial complex, that confluence of interests which aren't always in the best national defense interest, but always in favor of the makers of ships and so forth. Too many generals and other brass "revolving-door" into cushy jobs at those same companies. And no matter what happens there will always be U.S. makers of SOME gear, no matter what, because we can not be held hostage by foreign powers over stuff like ... rare earths.

A tricky balance, there. How can you get deadly serious about cuts before you eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse now epidemic-level throughout that very system? How can you cut costs when everyone wants a piece of the pie, and holds hands with the folks supplying the new gee-whiz toys? ("Have a drone. We're running a special.")

Then there's blind stupidity. The single best U.S. military aircraft ever built, the B-52, is still in service 50+ years later, and not one new ship has been built in decades. Meanwhile we wasted money on so many other planes which have become part of our military history.

Quote from: Shooterman on October 21, 2010, 05:52:21 AM
Oh crap. You've just alienated a good chunk of the 'Just Give US The Reins' crowd.

We've been on this path since at least the 30s, and that 800 pound gorilla in the room is now closer to 3000 pounds. Lotsa luck in placing that mutha on a diet.

What would you cut Shooter?

I know I could go through it with a machete and no one I know would ever notice any change in their lifestyle, but still see an obvious dent in the debt.
Can't say the same for the bitch with 5 kids, all by different fathers, or the illegal giving birth in our hospitals though.

Quote from: wally on October 21, 2010, 06:01:16 AM
I've heard the current Republican Leadership say that if we are able to roll back our funding to the 2006 Levels that the deficit will be gone.

Those folks must be smoking something. We had deficits in '06. Roll back spending to '06 levels and we won't have deficits? Whoops, a pig just flew by my window.

Something like one in every five Americans is now receiving federal help of some kind.

Welcome to the New France when people start getting told "no," and we really CAN'T afford it.

"Entitlement" is a filthy word. It implies an obligation to sustain PERSONAL welfare over COLLECTIVE welfare. It is a term which will take another two generations to turn into a curse-word, after the havoc wrought by FDR and other thieves of the American dream.

We need to oust the free-spending unaccountable bureaucrats. To do that means having a veto-proof Senate which AT BEST will not happen before 2012 (and probably not even then). Without the Dems to protect them, the federal unionized workforce should be reduced to absolutely ZERO. And then like England, lay off 100,000 just to see how it goes, and prepare for more cuts if it looks like we're making progress.

Quote from: Shooterman on October 21, 2010, 06:45:18 AM
Those folks must be smoking something. We had deficits in '06. Roll back spending to '06 levels and we won't have deficits? Whoops, a pig just flew by my window.

;D ;D ;D ;D
I saw the humor in that lie as well.
"Were only going to steal as much tax dollars as we did in 06, that should quiet them." :D

Quote from: Shooterman on October 21, 2010, 06:45:18 AM
Those folks must be smoking something. We had deficits in '06. Roll back spending to '06 levels and we won't have deficits? Whoops, a pig just flew by my window.

The Federal Deficit in 2006 was only $248 Billion.  With two years in a row of more than $1Trillion Deficits, $248 Billion by comparison is a much more sne number.  Again there will be much more work to do, but rolling back all spending to 2006 numbers would put us back on track!

However, remember that the funding of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was handled by specially appropriations submitted by Pres. Bush and approved (as law) by the Congress.  These war appropriations were not included in the Budget!  The cost of both wars during the entire Bush Administration amounted to a $1 Trillion plus and was added directly to our National Debt.  Ironically, that Trillion seems small by comparrison to the spending of the last 18 months!


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=723

Quote from: wally on October 21, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
The Federal Deficit in 2006 was only $248 Billion.

So, being a little pregnant is better than being a lot pregnant.

QuoteWith two years in a row of more than $1Trillion Deficits, $248 Billion by comparison is a much more sne number.  Again there will be much more work to do, but rolling back all spending to 2006 numbers would put us back on track!

Granted 1 trillion deficits are a heap of worry and 248 billion is less worrisome, but back on track? Back on track to do what? Slide into financial oblivion just a tad slower?

The fact remains; to save the country from total ruin will require leadership. Everyone will be hurt in the short run, but just possibly our unborn progeny will come out okay in the long run. To saddle them with our debt is immoral.

However, remember that the funding of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was handled by specially appropriations submitted by Pres. Bush and approved (as law) by the Congress.  These war appropriations were not included in the Budget!  The cost of both wars during the entire Bush Administration amounted to a $1 Trillion plus and was added directly to our National Debt.  Ironically, that Trillion seems small by comparrison to the spending of the last 18 months!


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=723
[/quote]

The budget deficit is around $1.3 trillion, isn't it?

If the GOP has the backbone, which they don't, they would demand the elimination of the Dept. Of Education, the Dept. Of Energy, and a few other bureaucratic wastelands.  Laying off thousands of federal employees is a necessity. 

When the largest employer in the United States is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and the largest employer in many states are the states themselves, we have a BIG PROBLEM.

If only the GOP had the courage and integrity and core priniciples necessary to do the job................

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on October 21, 2010, 07:40:40 AM
The budget deficit is around $1.3 trillion, isn't it?

If the GOP has the backbone, which they don't, they would demand the elimination of the Dept. Of Education, the Dept. Of Energy, and a few other bureaucratic wastelands.  Laying off thousands of federal employees is a necessity. 

When the largest employer in the United States is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and the largest employer in many states are the states themselves, we have a BIG PROBLEM.

If only the GOP had the courage and integrity and core priniciples necessary to do the job................

Congress adjourned without passing the budget, but it's been leaked to be $1.3 Trillion; about the same as last year. 

You sound just like my mentor, Ronald Reagan!  Reagan wanted to eliminate the Federal Departments of Eduction and Energy and drastically reduce the other departments, as well.

He said that GOvernment is not the answer to solving our Problem; Government is the Problem!

I only wish he'd accomplished a lot more, although he did change the tone and direction (allbeit for just a little while)

Turn the UN Plaza complex into an immigrant deportation center. Starting with the UN.

Quote from: wally on October 21, 2010, 07:53:47 AM
Congress adjourned without passing the budget, but it's been leaked to be $1.3 Trillion; about the same as last year. 

You sound just like my mentor, Ronald Reagan!  Reagan wanted to eliminate the Federal Departments of Eduction and Energy and drastically reduce the other departments, as well.

He said that GOvernment is not the answer to solving our Problem; Government is the Problem!

I only wish he'd accomplished a lot more, although he did change the tone and direction (allbeit for just a little while)

Me sounding like Ronald Reagan is not by accident.  He is also my mentor, and my hero.  This country needs Ronald Reagan NOW more than ever.  Government is indeed the problem.  Leadership is a rare commodity in this country too, and Ronald Reagan filled that void for eight years.

Quiller, I really like your idea for the UN building.  It's about time that the building was put to GOOD use!

Quote from: wally on October 21, 2010, 07:53:47 AM
Congress adjourned without passing the budget, but it's been leaked to be $1.3 Trillion; about the same as last year. 

You sound just like my mentor, Ronald Reagan!  Reagan wanted to eliminate the Federal Departments of Eduction and Energy and drastically reduce the other departments, as well.

How did that work out? Pretty well not, as I remember. Ronnie talked a big game; after all, he was a sportscaster at one time.