It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by beezzer
Evidently you didn't read the words of the guy from S&P... he clearly stated the reasons... and they weren't Obamas policies...
He pointed to the decision by Congress about whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as one crucial area. "If you let them lapse for the high-income earners, that could give you another $950 billion," he said.
You really should read the full OP and reflect before posting
Read more
David Beers, global head of sovereign and international public finance ratings at S&P, told "Fox News Sunday" that governments and Congresses come and go, but spending on entitlements persistently drags U.S. debt further into the red
"The key thing is, yes, entitlement reform is important because entitlements are the biggest component of spending, and the part of spending where the cost pressures are greatest," Beers said.
Beers said he faults both Congress and the Obama administration for "the difficulty of all sides in finding a consensus around fiscal policy choices," but any agreement must command the support from both political parties in order to be durable.
spending on entitlements persistently drags U.S. debt further into the red
Beers said he faults both Congress and the Obama administration
Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help — churches and private charities...
...A constitutionalist president's budget should do the following:
1) Reduce overall federal spending
2) Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3) Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4) Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt...
...As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.
Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government's obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.
Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.
The Democrats, just like the Republicans, are two sides of a coin whose value is provided by the US taxpayers. They are all "Career Politicians" too chummy with lobbyists, the DC lifestyle, and each other to 'get anything done.'
Our only saving grace is the 'rogue' pols (think Tea Party members) who are willing to go to DC on a 'mission' (cutting and balancing the budget). Period. Those professional, political science, law school grads, who all seem to have come from the Ivy League mindset have brought this country to the brink. Transcripts and college work and thesis matter (hello--still waiting on Obamas!) If they only 'learn' Keynesian Eco---well, doesn't that explain a lot! Throw the 'shadow government of Czars' in there too. I KNOW I would rather have the Prof who teaches Econ 101 at the Community College in charge rather than Geitner. At least the CC prof has the worry of budgeting his own expenses--the uber rich, second and third generation DC accolytes not so much.
My 'short list' for President--Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman--all outsiders. I hope Sarah Palin runs--again--not a DC insider, Ivy Leaguer.
Sorry for the rant, but the markets will go crazy tomorrow--and we will all suffer and pay. The DC 'elite' no way.
Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Well the GOP is in charge of Congress now. Turn about is fair play.
oops
You used my name in your OP. You owe me a nickle.
But I will say, you beat me to it.
S&F
Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
reply to post by beezzer
oops
You used my name in your OP. You owe me a nickle.
But I will say, you beat me to it.
S&F
I just grabbed the op's reply to your post which included your name.
I hope it doesn't appear that I am attributing the quote to you.edit on 7-8-2011 by GuyverUnit I because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
So...what is your solution regarding (the entitlement programs)...what cuts do you think should be made?