Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (14358)	4/2/2012 2:05:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I gave you a 33% cut in military spending (wihich is pretty much Ron Paul) Is that a 33% actual cut or a 33% cut from projected future higher spending? No actual cuts in the overall top line (for the whole federal government) are needed. But "cuts" of more than 33% in the eventual spending totals are probably important. For defense the difference between cuts in current spending, and cuts in future increases are not as far apart because defense is going to be pretty restrained going forward even without new actual cuts or further "cuts" off the increasing baseline. For entitlements that's not the case. Esp. not for Medicare. Medicare left alone will slowly gobble up the budget even if the budget increases (and the way things are going now debt payments will also gobble up the budget). We can increase Medicare spending in every year and still be fine. But we can't increase it as much as its projected to increase and still be fine.

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (14358)	4/2/2012 2:07:58 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

<<<<<But the real problem is federal entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, and Federal Pensions. >>> Damnit! I don't want to argue SS again. They fixed it in the 80's and there is trillions in the account. If you want to fix it AGAIN and make the baby boomers pay for something they already paid for - then do it. Just be prepared to pay the political cost. I'm for both taxes and cuts because I want a balanced budget. Medicare is an awful mess and will take a genius to find a solution. There may not be one for the three reasons I pointed out. BUT one side won't be able to fix it alone. Not without riots in the streets. Federal pensions; Well, I'd start by eliminating Homeland Security and Allllllllll those pensions. Federal jobs went up under Reagan down under Clinton up under Bush and aren't they going back down again now? But ya, I agree federal work force should shrink and pay go down. Want me to NOT be Mr nice guy; I would tax energy more! There that will give you something to beat me up for.