To Balance the Budget, Republicans Must Cut Military Spending, Trim Entitlements, or Raise Taxes
If Republicans refuse to gore their three sacred cows, a new CBO report shows that balancing the budget is literally impossible.

Let's say you were a Republican member of Congress with a sincere desire to craft a federal budget that would achieve balance by the end of the decade.
That's a noble goal! Balancing the budget wouldn't pay down the $31 trillion national debt, of course, but it would at least stop adding to it. There's just one small issue, your advisers tell you. Well, three issues, actually. You can't cut spending on the military (including veterans programs) or entitlement programs, and you can't advocate for letting the 2017 Trump tax cuts expire. That's sacred ground, they say, and suggesting any of those three ideas will end with you getting hoisted out of office by pitchfork-carrying voters, a loud-mouthed primary challenger, and/or the angry ghost of Ronald Reagan.
You can't pass a balanced budget if you're not a member of Congress, so you agree. Those three things are off the table. Now, all you have to do is get a majority of Congress and President Joe Biden to agree to cut literally every dollar of discretionary spending out of the budget and you'll have accomplished your goal. Almost.
This isn't an exaggeration. It's the actual results of a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of potential paths for using spending cuts to balance the federal budget over 10 years.
In one scenario outlined by the CBO, Congress would have to cut 86 percent of all discretionary spending if it wanted to balance the budget by 2033 without touching the military, veterans programs, or entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. In a slightly altered version of that same scenario in which the Trump tax cuts were not allowed to expire as intended in 2025, Congress would have to cut 100 percent of discretionary spending—and the country would still face a $20 billion deficit.

The CBO analysis helps to illustrate the seriousness of America's fiscal dilemma. While many libertarians might cheer the prospect of the federal government zeroing out all discretionary spending over 10 years, that's simply not a realistic proposal that could get anywhere near the requisite support in Congress.
Instead, it should be clear that any attempt at bringing the federal budget deficit under control must kill (or at least wound) the Republicans' sacred cows of military spending, entitlements, and the recent Trump tax cuts. Right now, however, leading Republicans including former President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) have vowed to keep Social Security out of any long-term spending deals. Rep. Jim Banks (R–Ind.) has promised to oppose any bill that cuts defense spending.
As for the tax cuts, they're technically temporary—a gimmick that allowed Republicans to game the CBO's scoring of the tax cut bill—but keeping the lower individual income tax rates in place past 2025 is a top priority for Republicans.
This CBO analysis was a response to a question submitted by two of the top Democrats in the Senate's budget-making process: Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) and Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D–Ore.). As such, there's an element of it that comes off as a partisan exercise—an opportunity to point out that spending cuts alone can't balance the budget, or just to highlight the impossibility of Republican demands surrounding the debt ceiling fight.
"As this analysis shows, no amount of cuts can make their math add up," Whitehouse said in a statement. "It is a farce."
But the CBO's numbers aren't partisan and neither is the blame for America's massive budget deficits. These latest projections only reveal how difficult the choices ahead will be. If Republicans are serious about trying to balance the budget, there can be no more sacred cows.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another option: the feds can pay obligations and benefits with other property in lieu of cash. How many SS beneficiaries would be happy with some prime real estate, say on a beachfront or national park vista?
They will tax you for the gift and you will be forced to sell it.
I have just received my 3rd payment order and $30,000 that I have built up on my laptop in a month through an online agent. This job is good and his regular salary is much better than my normal job.” Work now and start making money online yourself.
Go here……>>>>> http://Www.Smartjob1.com
To Balance the Budget, Republicans Must Cut Military Spending, Trim Entitlements, or Raise Taxes
stamps foot
Or I’ll vote for Biden again.
I recently saw a video of Janet Yellen testifying that the 50 trillion debt we will have in 10 years would have been much worse if it weren't for Joe. We are in good hands.
Is she clinically retarded?
We could stop funding our holy crusade in Ukraine.
Joe has that under control, too.
Let's get real, Republicans won't cut military spending or trim entitlements, and if they did, Boehm would still reluctantly and strategically vote for Democrats.
This is why the democrats have got to go. As long as their party exists, anyone else’s gets excoriated if they dare to turn down Uncle Sugar’s spigot of largesse.
So who's going to win the next UFC match? I'm eager to place a bet.
People might not have much choice if the Republicans don't offer better candidates.
Yes because the Democratic Party is definitely a viable option when it comes to fiscal prudence.
I love that Biden, who is measurably worse than Trump in every conceivable category, was a better option.
Can you provide examples of the measures you are using? Because I can suggest others where he is ahead.
By split, it's similar. By amount, it's more.
https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/bidens-first-budget-vs-trumps-last
More on the amounts.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/battle-of-the-budgets-biden-versus-trump
The Biden budget calls for a $124 billion increase in non-emergency spending above the current levels.
No they can't. He's their savior.
Can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.
Piss off. You are a Marxist moron with nothing to add to the equation.
I can think of one, and only one, measure where Trump is worse than Biden: Blabbermouth. Not that Biden doesn't let his mouth run with whatever comes to mind, without caring whether it is true or even sane, but Trump put his motormouth on steroids.
But that only matters to fools who think saying mean things is worse than doing mean things - and Biden and every Democrat that might replace him has a long history of doing terrible things, and only regrets that they weren't allowed to do worse.
I don't want Trump nor Biden.
I'm ready to vote for a tree stump at this point.
And the alternatives aren't even interested in balancing the budget at all...just debt us into poverty and servitude. Shouldn't those be the bad guys that deserve derision? This exercise is just another chance for Boehm to garner more cocktail party invites by performing the two minutes hate toward his foes, Republicans.
So cute. You think there's a real difference. Rs NEVER cut a budget. They merely create the right spin to get the votes of those who think the right spin balances budgets.
Really? Looking at the graph here: https://amarkfoundation.org/us-federal-deficits/
(Chart 2: Federal Deficit by Fiscal Year, 1981-2022), it would seem that Democratic Congresses increase budget while Republican Congresses either cut or stabilize budgets.
Maybe Jfree, like all partisans of a certain flavor that post here, attributes the budget to the person in the White House and not the people who actually control the purse strings?
Maybe you should read links instead of pretending to.
I didn’t make a comment about the chart, I made a comment about how certain posters here (shrike is the most notorious) attribute spending to the president instead of Congress and alluded that you might be doing the same.
Missed the edit window:
Obviously wrongly alluded.
That chart shows nothing whatsoever about Congress. But of course that's not a freaking surprise.
What it actually shows is that R Prez's increase deficits over their term and D Prez's decrease deficits over their term. Which is also what the executive summary says. Which STILL doesn't have a damn thing to do with budgets (which is what you are talking about) - even if it certainly reinforces the hypothesis that R's are a bunch of senile old coots who bleed their grandchildren dry with more debt while D's are still senile drunks but aren't stealing as much from their grandchildren.
"So cute. You think there’s a real difference..."
So stupid. You think droolin' Joe = Trump?
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Perfect.
The partisan D and R folks here amaze. The professional pols in both party don’t want to limit government power. Arguing who does more is like bailing California floods with a pipette.
LOL
https://youtu.be/2qiGvVe3-Nw
Joe has this all under control.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Gotta love Reason's turn to pushing to raise taxes.
Libertarians for increased taxes is becoming more and more of a thing. Whoops. Meant Libertines or Liberaltines.
That's just another example of where the "socially liberal / fiscally conservative" schtick falls apart. There's no virtue, per se, from a libertarian perspective, in balanced budgets. Balanced budgets are only valuable to the extent they reflect spending restraint. Think about it this way. Let's say I lend two people ten dollars each. The first guy comes back to me a couple of days later and tells me he's going to need to borrow another five. Yeah, that sucks. I'm not happy. But, let's say the second came back and takes another twenty out of my wallet. At the end of the couple of days, he comes back and tells me what a responsible and careful steward he is of my money because, gosh, he has five dollars. Of course, he's not. He robbed me so he could blow twenty five bucks where the first guy went through fifteen.
It's not just about the amount of spending. The payers of taxes, the payers of public debt, and the beneficiaries of spending are not identical.
"It’s not just about the amount of spending."
Yes, you stupid shit, it is just about the amount of spending.
Fuck off and die.
Reason's idea of libertarianism is government delivering their chosen set of social and policy preferences.
These vailed pushes for tax increases are an unavoidable consequence of this stance.
Look not at what they say they believe, but look at what tangible actions they espouse.
These vailed pushes for tax increases are an unavoidable consequence of this stance.
Yeah. The fact is cultural "liberalism" isn't free. A genuinely libertarian society is going to wind up looking a lot more like Mayberry than Mad Max. Those old, dowdy, unprogressive social mores became old, dowdy, unprogressive social mores because they work. They tend to avoid making people become drains on their fellow man. And the choices after throwing them out are to either let people bear the consequences of those bad decisions, in which case they'll likely revert to the old, dowdy, unprogressive social mores, or to subsidize the bad decisions.
The thing is we are already near the point where raising tax rates will result in diminishing receipts. There is a practical limit on how much the the government can extract from the economy before perverse incentives make high taxes counterproductive.
I'm a libertrian, and you didn't hear that from me, or from Reason. That's the choice, if you want to balance the budget; it's either A, or B.
But it's not, that's a false dilemna. , eleiminate ALL of the subsidies frist, that Democrats and Republicans load the tax code their corn growing/burning cronies.
Ya. The parents have let the kids run wild and max out the credit cards one after another, while always raising the limits and getting them more cards...and apparently one of the possible answers is the parents coughing up more money.
This is a libertarian website. The clear answer should be "Fuck you, cut spending" with no other alternatives
It's the parents and grandparents who went wild sticking the kids with the bill. And it's the former who vote not the latter
All to make slimy shits like you happy!
Thank God democrats don't have to do anything.
REPUBLICANS!!!
*shakes fist*
Did republicans pounce again?
To be fair, nobody has ever accused the Democrats of giving a shit about deficits or debt.
The best Republicans do is pretend.
Except all those times they cut taxes. And the sequester. And the 90’s under Clinton….
And look at all the good it did us. A brief slow down of deficit spending, followed by a return to the trend.
Zeb, are you suggesting we all band together to hunt down and exterminate the Marxists who have squandered our money?
Cutting taxes without cutting spending is stupid. Sure an argument can be made that decreasing taxes encourages economic growth, but you can’t have a tax rate of zero and expect to fund anything.
I'm not an anarchist. We need some government. For free markets to function they require property rights and contract enforcement. That's government. So there must be some taxes to fund it. Saying "Oh they cut taxes, they're financially responsible!" is a bunch of shit if it's not accompanied by proportional cuts in spending.
Some people here who bitch about that end up supporting the people bankrupting the country, while simultaneously ranting and raving constantly about how one guy who tried to make cuts is the worst asshole in the universe.
Do you know of any people like that Sarc? I hear they tend to drink a lot too.
I would agree with you that it’s not just about cutting taxes, even though we did see an increase in revenue with the last batch.
Republicans are not great on fiscal sanity, especially when they hold the trifecta, but they have attempted to do something about it multiple times in my short 40 years on this earth, so I think it’s stupid to say they just pretend. (And that’s not getting in to the weeds of people rightly calling all the big government assholes RINO’s).
Also, if increasing taxes is needed, then why are tariffs bad again?
There is a difference between taxes for revenue and taxes to influence behavior.
Lol. No there isn't. Taking someone's income is the same as taking a bit more on purchase. Especially if both amounts are equal. And the fact is government uses that money to try to influence behavior.
Ironically you have this position yet yell for open borders in a welfare state which is beyond retarded and makes deficits worse. Almost like you're a fucking idiot.
The only two presidents who tried to address the deficit were Dems (Clinton and Obama).
But stay in that GOP cocoon. It is nice and comfortable.
LMFA... Obama??? Is that a joke?
Clinton robbed SS to balance the budget and got the eCommerce by pure luck.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/?sh=38fe605025cf
What's Freak-en hilarious is you actually believe that BS.
Obama ran over $1T deficits EVERY year with the D-Trifecta.
Shooting right out of the gate by tripling the debt just like Biden did.
The ONLY thing that stopped it was an [R] Senate & [R] House.
Obama inherited $1 trillion deficits from the Bushpigs, you moron. I have linked to the CBO report that proves it.
He cut the deficit to $450 billion before Fatass Donnie ran it up to over $2.5 trillion in 2020.
$1.2 trillion deficit looms
Housing collapse and financial turmoil leads to steep rise in estimated U.S. shortfall for '09, Congressional Budget Office says.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: January 7, 2009: 5:00 PM ET
Obama sworn in Jan 21, 2009.
Now STFU.
All Democratic Budgets are all inherited by the previous LESS-THAN Republican Administrations according to Democrats. You all have been selling that deflection BS for years...
It always happens under our watch; but it's always the last administrations fault. Do tell; is anything EVER Democrats fault?
Isn't it amazing how Biden that crash the economy and send the debt into no-mans land mid-term????? Or; How about FDR. If it's all the last Administrations fault how'd the Great Depression last so long?
UR such a bigoted ignorant partisan hack its insane.
Nancy Pelosi took the amount spent during the last year of a Republican president (in a “time of crisis” mind you) and made that the baseline for the next years spending.
You are such a disingenuous fuck and you’ve had your ass handed to you so many times on this subject. Just take the L and slink off like the little bitch you are.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
Why do you keep pretending the president is in charge of spending and not Congress?
They work together. I give Reagan credit for the 80s boom and not the solid Dem House.
Reagan, Clinton, Obama - great economies, successful presidents.
Bush, Fatass Donnie - failures.
Biden - likely failure by Jan 2025.
I give Reagan credit for the 80s boom and not the solid Dem House.
Why?
And weren't we talking about deficits?
Every time.
He particularly likes to blame Trump for Pelosi's spending bills.
Well, turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
The secret is to blame the president when he's on the team you don't like and blame congress when he's on the team you prefer. There is no consistent logic to partisans. They will adapt their "strongly and long-held beliefs" to whatever is most useful for their top man.
The only two presidents who tried to address the deficit were Dems (Clinton and Obama).
What exactly did they do besides be opposed by Republican congresses?
Omnibus 1993 for Clinton
Budget Control Act of 2011 for Obama.
LOL... "Budget Control Act of 2011" Something about a stand-off between the newly elected [R] Congress and Democrats? It's amazing how you credit the dissenters for something that passes. Cool trick.
Omnibus 1993 for Clinton
Weird how it didn't really take hold until Republicans took Congress.
Budget Control Act of 2011 for Obama
And who controlled Congress in 2011?
Clinton economy boomed afterward:
According to Politifact, unemployment fell from 6.8 percent to 3.9 percent between passage of the bill and the end of Clinton’s term. After the bill’s passage, personal income increased by about 7.5 percent a year, compared to about 5.2 percent a year prior to passage. Industrial production rose by about 5.6 percent per year after passage, compared to 3.2 percent per year before passage. From the passage of the bill until the end of Clinton’s term, the Dow Jones Industrial average rose 26.7 percent per year, from 3,651 to 10,788. It’s clear that the economy bloomed after the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, but it’s impossible to prove that the bill caused the economy to grow so substantially.
Of course so did Obamas. Greatest jobs run ever.
"Greatest jobs run ever."
Oh wow!
Clinton economy boomed afterward
Why are you still pretending that presidents control spending?
And you're still using a metric that goes from late 1993, right before the Republicans took control of Congress, a year for which yes the deficit went down, but debt also went way up, to the end of Clinton's term when the Republicans had control of Congress for the previous six years.
IOW, this partisan screed from Politi(cized)Fact doesn't actually respond to what I said in any way.
I'd also mention that, under Clinton, the concept of honest accounting for corporations effectively died a grisly death.
Turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Obama ran trillion dollar deficits until the Republicans got control of the House. Obama (and you in these very comment sections) stamped his feet like a little bitch when Republicans tried to cut spending and then shut down the government. And what did Obama do when the government shut down? Made sure to really stick it to the average American so they’d get pissed off at the Republicans for turning off the money spigot.
This of course led into sequestration which, again you and Obama stamped your fucking feet over.
Of course all of this ignores the fact that the president doesn’t decide how much is spent, Congress does. And Democrats have literally never cut spending or even paid it lip service.
Not an Obama fan by any means but Trump ran $trillion deficits, as well. Neither party will propose cuts since they will immediately be derided by the other party and lose the election. Both sides have learned that you don’t buy votes by cutting spending.
Trump didn’t real,y have a choice. His veto would have been overridden and the media would have ripped him apart for even trying.
“If straight, conservative men would stop fucking their wives and defending their families, I wouldn’t be forced to suck so much D so hard.” – Boehm
No chance.
The GOP wants to concentrate on Hunter Bidens Penis and tranny-dancing for this term.
But enough of your sexual fantasies.,
How come you deliberately pretend it's about a penis, when you actually know it's about bribery and pay to play?
Is it because you're a fifty-center?
envy.
The only evidence you have are Hunters dick pics.
Yeah, I know. A partner in a VC firm exchanged email with someone in China. BFD. You got nothing.
Kind of like paying off your porn-whore.
That’s cute for someone who posts
links to CP.
Yeah, I know. A partner in a VC firm exchanged email with someone in China.
It's amazing how militantly opposed you are to anyone being concerned about this.
Show me some evidence.
"Big Guy 10%" is the bar tab.
Show me some evidence.
You've been shown evidence. Lots. It's clear that you desperately want everyone to stop paying attention to this.
But on the topic of evidence, can you show me some evidence that only thing Biden's critics care about is Hunter's penis? Or that they even care about Hunter's penis at all?
But it wasn't “Big Guy 10%”.
It was "10% for the Big Guy" in an email talking about commissions on a subject that Joe was involved in. No bar tab involved.
Not only that but there's all the Burisma emails, that some of the recipients admit in sworn testimony were about payoffs.
But you pretend it's about penises, because you're paid to.
Not only that but there’s all the Burisma emails, that some of the recipients admit in sworn testimony were about payoffs.
Which doesn't even begin to address Hunter's new-found art career, and the anonymous buyers who find his art to be such an incredibly worthwhile investment.
"Show me some evidence."
Here you go. You already know this, but well, you're a shill:
"Despite Joe Biden’s assertions that he had no involvement with Hunter’s appointment to Burisma, he signed off on the official statement in response to questions from reporters about whether Hunter’s position undermined the VP’s credibility in pushing anti-corruption measures." [relevant email attached]
" Eric D. Schwerin, Hunter’s associate at Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC, corrected typos in Vice President Biden’s official statement." [relevant email attached]
"The VP’s office connected reporters (who were writing about Hunter’s appointment to Burisma) to Amos Hochstein, the “point” person for International Energy Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, to provide a “unique and valuable perspective” on the relationships in Ukraine.
Remember, turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
GOP will increase the deficit and blame the other party.
Remind me again who has the senate and the presidency.
I’ll give you time to google it.
The GOP had the Senate and White House in 2020 when spending shot up.
Facts matter.
Just never-mind that purse strings House eh?
UR such a partisan hack.
Oh hey; lookie there. The spending doubled the very point [D]'s took the house.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS-addled shit-pile and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Like the fact that you posted Cap links here? Address that.
Hey dumbfuck, your fellow George Soros commies in the media and the DA's office are desperately trying to get Trump on Stormy Daniels!
Why are you commie shitbags so obsessed with Donald Trump's penis anyway? Is it becausr he's a normal heterosexual man who likes grown women and you're a faggot and a pedophile? That's your mental illness to deal with, not his.
Stormy got cheated. She was our rightful first lady. Not that commie Euro-trash Melania.
Soros has earned about $90 billion as a capitalist. Then he went all anti-war on the Bushpigs pissing off you conservatives.
Now your whole goddamn party has followed Soros there. Just admit it Mikey.
About as much "America's rightful first lady" as the corpse of the five-year-old tied up in your basement is your lawfully wedded wife.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS addled shit-pile, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Soros, having supported Obama, Hillary, and Biden has shown that he wasn’t anti-war, he was just Anti-Bush. God, is there anything you can get right?
Soros has never created an actual useful real product or service that anyone wanted to voluntarily purchase in his entire life. He's a left Nazi socialist communist scum like you who made his entire fortune leveraging corrupt governments and their shaky currencies. Admittedly brilliant, in its own twisted and evil way.
Soros, his family, and his acolytes, like you should all be rounded up and executed.
At least you are admitting at this point that you don't have serious ideas or thoughts.
Yes, I’m sure you’re a big fan of Hunter fucking his underage niece Natalie. You goddamned pedophile.
Raising taxes will never, EVER, balance the federal budget.
Ever.
+1000000000
Raising tax Revenues will. Which is very different than raising tax Rates. Laffer and Reagan proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt
No even that will never solve the budget problem.
The only way is to take the Credit Card away from the wifey... 🙂
And you all know exactly what I'm saying by that.
Reagan had record-setting budget deficits at the time.
>>the Republicans' sacred cows of ... entitlements
don't trust anyone under 30.
They could eliminate the military and it wouldn’t balance the budget.
And progs say "tax the 1%".
But a 100% tax on the 1%s earnings gets only about $900 billion. And for not very long.
We need a long term compromise. Something like Simpson-Bowles. But GOP assholes didn't want Obama to get credit for it.
If I was king I’d freeze the budget and let inflation balance it.
We all know you’d blow it all on champagne enemas.
Someone has to tell the middle class that if they want continued goodies, they have to pay for it. Doesn't matter what adult does it, but thems the breaks.
All the socialist countries they pitch as paradise pay significantly higher middle class tax rates, and that's where all the potential money is sitting.
The 'other people's money' that supposedly can pay for everything has run out.
The ‘other people’s money’ that supposedly can pay for everything has run out.
We've probably got another few decades of being able to plunder developing economies via MMT.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Holy shit, you think the "1%" makes $90 trillion in income a year? Way to discredit yourself further 🙂
Yeah; but at least Communist and Socialist regime’s could conquer the USA completely. After the [D] party dismantles National Security Russia can then just take it over without even a whimper. Then they can get their ever progressiveness to a United States of Socialist America (USSA)..
https://twitter.com/FromKulak/status/1638928519257534465?t=qeY4gPL9H7CAFy7Ii4ewhA&s=19
France maintains a standing army of 100,000 Gendarmes explicitly for the purpose of violently suppressing its own citizenry when they oppose having their lives destroyed.
I wonder if the individual Gendarmes have names and addresses?
[Video]
Can’t they just buy velvet ropes to control them?
There is one, and ONLY one, question for the R-Senator who would oppose any military spending cuts: How much military spending would we need to fix the backlog of Navy repairs, maintain existing military hardware at an outstanding level, and update reasonable research and development for new military technology? Fine! Spend that and cut all military spending on Global War Against Terrorism interventions, bring the troops home and go from there!
You forgot replacing all of the artillery shells and other stuff sent to Ukraine. If it is not replaced, we might as well disband our military, because they wouldn’t have the munitions and arms to fight, if they had to.
I don't believe I forgot that. I don't believe it would be classified as "military spending" - that's all. It would be considered foreign aid and would come under a totally different line item in the budget. To be clear, I want to have the best equipped, best trained, overwhelmingly superior armed force in the world - one that no other force in the world would dare to risk confronting during a military attack on or invasion of the United States of America. I want to have the most feared nuclear strike capability in the world - one that no other force in the world would risk Mutually Assured Destruction over. I do NOT want to have a US military force stationed everywhere in the world confronting terrorists or pretending to "make the world safe for democracy." All clear now?
Does our military and MIC actually spend wisely? 800T+ SMH.
FU Cut Spending!!!!!!!!!!!
Not going to happen. Cutting spending is unpopular for both political parties.
Only Constitutional Spending would fix that.
Which will most likely require depositing much of the democrat infestation into landfills, as a prerequisite to positive outcomes.
It certainly is when republicans do it. You scumbags try to rip them apart for it. While simultaneously pushing for a $6.8 trillion baseline annual budget. So it isn’t just about being unwilling to cut. You want to finish off the US even faster.
The only way we can possibly balance the budget is to eliminate the democrat party, and it’s Marxist collaborators in the media and Hollywood. You’re welcome to join the side of good and condemn your party and your president now, but we all know you won’t.
If we're going to keep the most expensive military in the world, they need to start running like a business. When we invade other countries, they need to be bringing back the spoils. Instead of pouring money into countries we conquer, let's bring back shiploads of booty and see if we can't make a profit.
Denied! Government agencies should NEVER be "run like a business!" Businesses should be run to make a profit providing goods and services according to the consumer demand. Government agencies should be run within the original intent of Constitutional limitations in such a way that they avoid corruption and inefficiency as much as possible. If businesses should also avoid those things, it's merely coincidental.
Summary; The only asset to humanity Gov-Guns can possibly provide is to ensure everyone Liberty and Justice. Using Guns to gain wealth is what armed-criminals do.
Guns don't make sh*t..!
Not sure when 'entitlements' became a Republican 'sacred cow'.
Seems to me, every time I turn around, leftists are shrieking that the GOP is going to kill grandma, kids, public radio, the arts, medicare/aid and that only Democarats and the left can save entitlements.
Because it IS entitlement spending that's the issue
Retired Republican voters love social security and medicare. The GOP voting base just happens to love this shit.
Sure, sure; We see Democrats lobbying to cut it all the time. Right, right? /s
As opposed to what? What are their alternatives?
Local welfare office; where it should've stayed all along.
Zero-sum resource theft isn't sustainable. There is nothing secure about Social-ist Security.
Too many support Gun-Theft for a living *because* they think there won’t be any consequences for it. It’s not the government (Gov-Guns) job to supply everyone a living suitable to their desires. There has to be consequences either now or down the road. It’s unsustainable. Guns don’t make sh*t.
No. He said retired republicans love Medicare and social security. That’s why I asked ‘opposed to what’. Since we all know there really is no alternative thanks to a government monopoly. But eyesore didn’t respond.
What, you don't remember the "keep government hands off my medicare" signs from the Tea Party protests?
https://www.zebrafactcheck.com/tea-party-folks-think-the-government-should-keep-its-hands-off-medicare/
Sounds like Liberal infiltrators creating scenes for the media.
But; That's just one source so.... Take of it what you will.
Fuck off you leftist cunt. Where is your piece on the limitless entitlements that Democrats and Democrats only must cut? Oh, right you won't attack your own team.
I think its an unintentional admission that the only adults left in the room are on the right, while the left will continue to dream of unicorns who shit UBI and carbon-free energy that will be provided by 'taxing the rich'
unintentional admission
"I came here to suck off Team D and blame Republicans until I'm all out of Republicans." - Boehm
Easy. Force every department to cut head count by 10%. Cut the pay of everyone left by 10%. Stop funding foreign wars. Stop funding the drug war. Our leadership is a bunch of children.
That saves about $50 billion out of a $6 trillion budget.
Good start though.
Eliminate the Democratic Trifecta's would've eliminated $6T just in the last 2-years. How about that plan?
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
That doesn't sound very easy. But give it a try and let us know how it turns out.
Working for one of the “good” Federal bureaucracies I can’t tell you how much waste and sloth I see. In my highly productive workgroup 15% would have been fired years ago in private industry. Another 10% would be on thin ice. I can’t imagine what does on in other agencies.
The number of Federal employees has dropped since the 1972 Libertarian Platform got us in the spoiler vote business. So, what's your Plan B? (https://bit.ly/3AunUfM)
The Selfish GREED of Democratic voters is unbelievable… Use the Gov-Gun “armed-theft” of your neighbors to bribe criminal selfish votes… Check.
Oh no! We want MORE, MORE, MORE; Please completely defund National Security too and send me all that ?free? money instead… Besides; We HATE the USA and want it to be conquered by other Socialist Empires.
Humorously; A lot of us did everything possible to escape the last socialist Empire RESULTS; so we are here to ***** CONQUER and CONSUME ******** this nation next.
I favor thinning the democrat herd.
We noticed. Save the hot chicks though; just don't give them voting rights.
Hot chicks always get a pass. The nutty ones can be repurposed away from ‘activism’. Dennis Reynolds has a tutorial on how to deal with them…….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOVJ3zaQnYo
I'm by no means averse to cuts in defense spending and entitlements. But, the article is less than fully honest in that it refuses to acknowledge the obvious, cuts in non-defense discretionary spending, while not in themselves enough to cover the deficit, can offset the need for cuts in defense or entitlements (although I'm an all-of-the above kind of guy). Since we're all libertarians here (chortle), I've no doubt that Mr. Boehm will follow up this article with one calling for the following cuts:
* End the Department of Energy ($158.7bn)
* End the Department of Education ($102.5bn)
* End the Department of Commerce ($107.9bn)
* End the Department of Health & Human Services ($127.3bn, discretionary)
* End the Department of Homeland Security ($143.9bn)
* End the Department of Agriculture ($348.2bn)
* End the Department of the Interior ($83.7bn)
* End the Department of Transportation ($204.2bn)
* End the FBI ($10.3bn)
And that takes us all the way to $1.29 trillion. Even if we allow nearly 30% wiggle room, for overlap or whatever legitimate functions that need to be reassigned, we still have a trillion dollars to play with defense.
* Socialist Security ($952.5B)
* Center for Disease Control ($15.4bn)
* Food and Drug Administration ($6.1bn)
$2.264T Cut out $264B for Old-Age welfare Figuring about 1/2 that actually need it (48M retirees/2 = $920/month).
And turn welfare (universally) over to the State.
SS is on its own budget.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
This doesn’t even account for the crazy amount of unauthorized spending.
The DOD spent $21 trillion on unauthorized expenditures between 1998 and 2015. An MSU economist discovered it and they said they would do an audit. The audit still has not been done as of 2023.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct
Exactly.
Completely eliminate all department that are not directly tied to a constitutional authorization.
(Hint for Eric: Article one, section eight)
I disagree with ending the FBI. I would divorce it from Homeland Security before ending Homeland Security. I would also cut 3,990 Federal laws and regulations and their associated regulatory agencies. The ten or fifteen Constitutionally allowed Federal laws remaining could then be safely investigated by the (much smaller) FBI subsequently. Oh, and by the way: eliminate ALL plea bargaining, ladder climbing and investigative and prosecutorial chicanery. If you are suspected of a Federal crime based on reasonable suspicion, you should be charged with that crime and prosecuted, in court, in front of a jury of your peers and either convicted or exonerated on those charges and NOTHING ELSE.
None of these discussions or proposals really matter.
What is actually going to happen is they are going to print their way into astronomical debt and accelerate the debt with more printing to pay off short term debts. This is the path they cannot get off. The cycle will accelerate until hyperinflation occurs.
Prepare yourselves accordingly.
Right. It's too late to fix this. Young people, prepare for the collapse and the rebuilding afterwards.
Fine. Cut entitlements, cut military spending, cut out a ton of federal grants to local areas. Put all the insider-trading congress members in federal prison. Say, 1 year for every 1% each year their portfolio averaged over the market. So, if you did 10% better than the market for 10 years . . .
Then vote everyone remaining out and do it again.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
"Don’t threaten me with a good time." ---- LOL.. Best comment today!!!
Unicorn Abattoir's Moment of Madness:
Why not flip the tax structure upside down? i.e., pay the highest rate at the municipal level, and the lowest rate (say 5%) at the federal? You'd have more control over how your taxes are spent, and you'd constrain the federal government's power.
Because powermongers specifically don't want to decentralize power, silly.
Like exactly what the US Constitution instructs?
Pretty much. National Defense, protect the rights of the individual and free trade.
^+1
Oh, and that's defense of the US, not some country where our interests are pretty much zero.
Fuck you Boehm.
The largest components of entitlement were enacted when Team D held POTUS, House, and Senate. Team D had POTUS, House, and Senate for two years and did what? Spent money funding Ukraine. Entitlement spending is not a Republican cow. They frequently oppose it and frequently juxtapose it in lieu of other liberties and spending.
I've got no problem calling military spending a Republican sacred cow, but fuck you for blaming you and your team's contributions to the deficit on others.
^ this. also proper use of expletive.
Reducing costs while maintaining quality is the goal
for many companies. On this path, profitability, supply chains, etc. are being reviewed. A special place is occupied by the cost of maintaining the company's office and the cost of the company's personnel. Leveraging Pharmbills bpo outsourcing company https://pharmbills.com/ allows companies to hire highly qualified professionals without the need for internal recruitment. It is very effective for cost management to improve business agility. In addition, outsourcing allows business leaders to reduce their stress levels, reducing the chances of executive burnout.
"...As such, there's an element of it that comes off as a partisan exercise—an opportunity to point out that spending cuts alone can't balance the budget,..."
That's a lie. Cutting spending is the only way to balance the budget.
What you really mean is that cutting spending in ways which are acceptable can't balance the budget.
Fuck you; cut spending.
"Sacred cows" and "entitlements" are (de)valuing ) words. Labelling them the miitary an "essential pillar of American democracy", and social seurity and medicare "contracted income earned by a lifetime of contributions" would skew the argument oppositely.
We spent 3.5 trillion in 2019. Where is the extra 2 trillion the democrats are spending going?
Cut that and the budget will work itself out seeing as revenue has gone up every year (minus a slight dip in 2020, not sure why).
Y'all are weird.
The reason this article is framing this about Republicans is because it is the Republicans in the House, under the leadership of McCarthy, that are insisting on a balanced budget. They are also the ones that have said they won't touch those three "sacred cows".
So yeah, a study showing that their demands are literally impossible to meet is going to be about Republicans because they're the ones making the demands.
Y'all are prattling about ideology on an article about pragmatism.
The reason this article is framing this about Republicans is because
it is the Republicans in the House, under the leadership of McCarthy, that are insisting on a balanced budgetof Boehm.FIFY. Opposing being orthogonally blamed for something that isn't your fault and that you don't personally believe in but can't refute without getting massacred isn't weird, it's rational and pragmatic.
Boehm conflates SS security with all entitlements, conflates legislative or administrative action with budgetary action, and conflates endlessly stated pragmatic compromise with "sacred cow" ideology in order to obfuscate facts and reality with his narrative. He could've acknowledged the pragmatics of the situation but he didn't he, instead, chose to obfuscate with ideology.
"No, Mr. President: We will not let you cut Social Security. We will fight to expand it." - Bernie Sanders, Jan. 4th, 2020
"As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen... What we have to do and the way we solve our problems is to build a great economy." - Trump, CPAC 2013
Directly contrary to the 'sacred cow' assertion, Trump cut SSI benefits. It went generally unnoticed because it wasn't in terms of a high-profile budget fight and it's questionable whether at the grapevine or grass roots level, it cost him the election.
Any presidential candidate worth a shit is going to have to run on the platform of cutting the government by 25% across the board. That will be to exercise the power of the executive. Then propose a budget that cuts medicare/welfare/SS and Military spending. This is the recipe to get us back to some modicum of solvency. Right now 67% of the budget goes into the black hole of entitlements. That is money has little to no ROI the rest porkulous and meaningless spending to keep the administrative state running. It's not sustainable and people will respond in kind
Then the media has to go first. They will destroy anyone who presents such a plan.
Eric, it is important, especially for libertarians, to remember that there is a key distinction between "raising taxes" and "raising revenue." Legalizing the underground economies in drugs, gambling, labor (for undocumented aliens), and the sex trade would raise huge amounts of revenue without (in my view) "raising taxes." Does the CRS Report recognize this distinction?
Among the things that would disappear are border security. Let anyone who wants to to walk over the border. No immigration or customs at airports.
All drugs become legal. Including fentanyl.
All guns become legal.
All prisons emptied out. Police abolished at the federal level.
No more federal aid for infrastructure.
No more scientific research. A bigger brain drain than Nazi Germany experienced as American scientists emigrate in droves. As long as their passports are still unexpired of course -- no new passports issued because the passport office is defunded.
Members of Congress would get paid but they would no longer have any staff.
Federal judges would get paid but they would not have any law clerks and there would be no US Marshals to enforce their orders.
If a bank fails it is tough luck for the depositors.
I could go on and on. Preserving our bloated military, Social Security, and the Trump tax cuts means a dystopian society.
Among the things that would disappear are border security. Let anyone who wants to to walk over the border. No immigration or customs at airports.
* * *
no new passports issued because the passport office is defunded
Given the first statement, why does the second statement matter?
Methinks thou graspeth at straws.
Back in reality, we’re looking for real solutions.
Sounds good to me.
Why do you think that’s a problem?
Leave all of that to the states, like the EU does.
I seez yer problem right there.
It has to be a Republican because democrats only create bigger and bigger problems.
Yep. Villfool Blindness detected.
Maybe I missed it...where's the stampede of Democrats in Congress leading the charge for your solution, Eric?
I got fi' dolla sez that stampede is gleefully raking together a pile of Women's Votes and praying God's Own Prohibitionists and the LP nominate another girl-bullying mystical bigot. (https://bit.ly/3eZWA0e)
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1214660855784194048
(emphasis added)
Get fucked Boehm.
This is all BS.
We steal and redistribute appx $1.5 Trillion every year.
These programs include, but are not limited to Medicaid, food stamps, SS Disability, Supplemental Security Income, Refundable Tax Credits, artificially higher Social Security pensions for lower income workers, etc.
We must quickly phase out all such spending while working in very robust work requirements.
THAT would balance the budget without cutting the military and making the Trump tax cuts permanent.
A good start would be cutting the several hundred billion dollars a year the Biden administration is wasting on the nonsense of climate change. No more subsidies for EV's, wind farms or solar. And by promoting the development of oil and gas reserves, the federal government will reap a windfall in energy related fees.
Fuel prices would drop precipitously if we just got rid of ethanol reformulaiton.
The LP has not yet been infiltrated by enough econazis to screech global warmunism. Right now a vote for the LP is still a vote against anti-energy anarco-communism. (https://tinyurl.com/2p925swy)
With a handful of seats in the majority in the House, and the Senate and the presidency in Democratic hands, what exactly do you want Republicans to do?
They're not going to trim the military budget in the light of Russia and China, and voters don't want them to. Neither are they going to trim entitlements because it would get vetoed and it would be used against them. Ditto with raising taxes on the middle class, which is the only thing that would really make a difference.
The only thing we can hope for is that they stand firm on not raising taxes on higher income earners, which would be disastrous. Massive government spending and deficits are going to create inflation, which is like a tax on everyone, and we'll just have to live with it.
Apologies if I'm repeating something another commenter has already stated; however:
* Abolish the Department of Education
* Abolish the Department of Energy
* Abolish the Department of Transportation
* Abolish the Department of Health and Human Services
* Abolish the Department of Homeland Security
* Abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation
* Abolish the FCC
* Abolish the FDA
* Abolish the CDC
* Privatize Air Traffic Control
* Downsize and have a military focused on defending the US, closing all bases on foreign lands, after all it's Department of Defense, not the Department of War nor the Department of World Police
* End the 'War on Drugs'
* End the 'War on Poverty'
* "Starve the Beast" and repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Did a reporter for a libertarian website really write this article?
The response from Biden and Democrats would be:
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
veto
Of course, the b.s. Boehm was suggesting wasn't any more realistic.
There's no way back to stability from here. Whatever the road forward is, it leads through deadly chaos before it gets anywhere better.
True. We can only hope Americans develop the will to do what is necessary to the left in time to save this country.
Tough call. You'll see friends and neighbors facing you. In my state I'll be outnumbered 10-1.
Once upon a time one could reason with them….
Not anymore; Their failed logic has resorted to full on ignorance, bigotry and flat out taking pride in destroying the USA and committing “armed-theft” of their neighbors.
The only thing I’ve seen that changes their minds anymore is when they end up being a major participant in their rob and dictate those ‘icky’ neighbors. It’s a gangland politics system for a zero-sum resources game and only when the gang starts eating there own do their indoctrinated ‘feelz’ subside to reasoning again.
Would have to start in the states run by Americans. But consider that an entire woke mob, many armed, couldn’t take down one armed teenager. Imagine Kyle Rittenhouse backed up by a dozen armed guys with knowledge of tactics and well equipped for battle.
In any conflict between democrats and Americans, democrats lose.
The “democrats” would be backed up by the real armed forces and law enforcement. Armed rebel "Americans" would quickly be eliminated.
Some of them. Given how the supermajority of LEO’s and armed forces lean right, I don’t see them all backing the Biden Regime. And if even 1% of the population goes hot, it will be overwhelming.
Being a bunch of weak little pussies does not pay dividends for the democrats in any physical confrontation.
The problem is that the work these Departments and Agencies do will still remain and so will most of the cost. The cost is not agency but rather the work done by that department or agency. The problem is that it cannot be done from the top down but rather needs to be done from the bottom up. The work of the agency would need to be evaluated and then decide what is not needed and how the work will be accomplished.
Kidnapping case where the victim crosses a state line are handled by the FBI. Who handles those crimes in the future? Who going to set standards for testing new drugs and who will review the data. I could go on and on.
Downsizing what the government does is a good idea but it has to be done from the bottom up not the top down.
The work of the agency would need to be evaluated and then decide what is not needed
Article I Section 8 is a good place to start and I can find no clause granting power to Congress for anything I listed.
You’re missing the point here. People who are saying “abolish the departments” are saying that the with these departments are doing is superfluous.
How would we cope? The same way the EU does. If there is cooperation needed, the states can voluntarily agree to do it, under state control, with voluntary participation of each state.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
To Balance the Budget, Democrat’s Must Cut Unproven Woke Green Spending, Trim Entitlements, Trim Foreign aid to teach LGBT+ to other counties, End funding others wars, Not Just Raise Taxes
While the GOP now controls the House, it is by a very narrow margin. The two parties need to come m a consensus on spending, no one party can ram through what they want right now. While spending originates in the House, the Senate and President have a lot of say in it too. Especially the President with his Veto power and the GOP not enough votes to override. For the TDS lunatics to put in all on the GOP is very disingenuous.
We do need to cut the budget, and there is no way to do that at this point without causing pain for a lot of people, but that pain will be a lot less than the coming economic collapse if we stay on the Democratic led spending spree. The Democrats problem is if that happens in the next two years, Biden and the Democrats will be blamed, which will be appropriate. I realized this is a long term problem by both parties but Biden and the Democrat’s spending and policies are certainly hastening the end. Being in power has consequences. Presidents get the blame.
Good one reason. Pretending Rs give a flying fuck about balancing the budget one goddamn bit. They use it as a cudgel when a Dem is president and spend like drunken sailors when it's an R president. Rinse/repeat.
How any person can be so fucking dumb to think they're at all any of the following is beyond me:
1) Party of personal responsibility (Trump- the bucks stops over there somewhere)
2) fiscally conservative (see above)
3) Party of freedom (Florida anyone?)
“spend like drunken sailors when it’s an R president” — Well; that’s a boldfaced lie. Democrats held the House and wrote the Cares Act (the big spending under Trump); your only case would be Republicans failed to stop Democrats massive spending. And which party was the only objection to it? Thomas Massie [R].
The Democratic Trifecta has UN-debatable unprecedented spending every-time.
We really should get rid of the democrats and see what happens. It should be pretty easy to weed out the bad republicans at that point. Plus leaving a big vacuum to be filled by more libertarian leaning individuals.
Yet ever Republican Administration has out spent the previous Democratic Administration and every Democratic Administration has out spent the previous Republican Administration. To blame it on one party or the other is ridiculous. I do agree Republicans find fiscal responsibility only when out of power and try to limit Democratic spending and that is good. On the other hand Democrats have never seen a nickel they didn’t want to spend and enable the Republican spending, though they argue what it should be spent on. So both parties are culpable. Yet the party with the most power at the time is the party responsible at the moment (that would be the Democrats right now), and neither has done a good job over time.
Remember, regardless of the make up of Congress, the President gets the blame.
The problem isn’t either party, the problem is the American voters: they want free crap from the government. Even the so called libertarians want to do things like abolish drug laws, permit vagrancy, and open borders but continue to socialize the costs.
No party can go against that. But if a majority of the American voters ever tolerates shrinking government, Republicans are going to deliver and Democrats are still going to fight it.
2022 budget numbers:
Entitlements - $3.5 trillion
Defense - $1.1 trillion
Everything else - $0.6 trillion
Total Spending - $5.2 trillion
Revenues - $4.2 trillion
Shortfall - $1 trillion
A balanced budget will require 20% cuts across the board. That means only $2.8 trillion for Entitlements - which includes interest on the debt ($1 trillion) - which CANNOT be cut. Oops, that means that it will require 40% cuts to SS, Medicare, etc.
Or just cut entitlements. Endless bullshit there to cut. Start with all finding to illegals.
Meant to say ‘just cut entitlements by 30%’
All anyone need do to cut government looting and squandering is vote Libertarian. Voting Communist and Fascist got the mess the way it is with spoiler vote fractions under 3% on average. (https://bit.ly/3FnmxRb)
Libertarians are useless at cutting government looting.
In fact, just look at these pages: most libertarians are happy to continue government looting while pushing policies that will increase government spending.
The only way to shrink government is for the country to become conservative first. That’s how all libertarian leaving small government societies have arisen.
and that will only happen after a catastrophe [economic, natural - yellowstone caldera ... you get the picture]
the widows mite is easy to sacrifice - it was only going to last for a day anyhow so what the heck? Americans will sacrifice their freebees when the freebees are worthless - and that will be either a) when feckless govt destroys the financial system and economy or b) some kind of national or global disaster [note - i'm not positing the unicorn of climate crisis here]
To provide for the Common Defense is in the original Constitution. To copy the Communist Manifesto Plank 2 was inserted as Amendment 16 thanks to Teedy Rosenfeld. Transfer payments from producers to non-producers were added after GOProhibitionists wrecked the economy and helped Hitler rise to power. Most of the bipartisan New Deal was copied from what Republicans proudly called the New Germany... until 1942.
The welfare state was created German conservatives in order to ward off communists. It wasn’t that they wanted government handouts, it's that providing them was the only alternative to the threat of a socialist revolution.
Your history of the New Deal and the US economy is bullshit.
Taxes bring in around 4 trillion dollars per year, which was enough to run the whole government just 5 years ago. So cut spending back to 2018 levels and no more deficit. It's not like the government was too small in 2018.
I’ve always gotten the impression that she’s kind of dumb. At least relative to someone holding her position. So maybe not quite Tony dumb (85 IQ), but on the dim side of her profession.
Much like her boss.
1. Cut spending? Yes, absolutely. No topic should be off the table and this really is the best way to achieve fiscal health. Fewer government jobs means more folk available for all those Help Wanted signs by eliminating redundant and unconstitutional government agencies, and penalizing as necessary all agencies for their poor accounting practices, military + entitlements are quite egregious I'm afraid.
2. Increase revenue? That just gives more money to the idiots to spend recklessly. Less power to them can only be good for us. If they really wanted to maximize revenue though is they would adjust rates to do so (but that usually means taxes go down) along with doing whatever they could to get government out of the way of hampering economic activity ( which usually means eliminate regulation that have no net benefit -- going to be a lot of them).
Don't 'cut' spending, eliminate it. First, ALL of the subsidies provided 'green', or alternative energy sources (which aren't alternatives, because they need to be subsidized, to make them 'alternative'.
I'm 7'2",if I'm on stilts.
Several entire departments should be cut. But 90% of those Republicans that talk about smaller government to win elections don't mean it once government power is in _their_ hands.