Defense spending should be target #1. To his credit, Gates has been helping trim costs. Just so you have a ballpark figure, I was once told by a former US Ambassador that here is how government spending is doled out:

 

Defense (DoD)- $500 billion/yr

Intelligence (CIA) - $50 billion/yr

Diplomacy (DoS) - $5 billion/ yr

 

That seems skewed to me.

 

That's funny. We spent $42 Billion on diplomacy and assistance last year. Those 2, diplomacy and assistance, go hand in hand. I'm all for cutting it to $5 billion. Last I checked, the President is asking for $51 billion in the next budget, though.

The focus of the Tea Party members is "cuts."

 

Which of these would be off-limits?

 

Raising the SS retirement age to 70.

 

Cutting military pay.

 

Adding deductibles to VA benefits.

 

Cut Medicare benefits.

 

Reduce farm subsidies

 

Defense

 

Move Social Security to a need-based ie welfare-like system

 

mortgage interest deduction

 

I think all money paid into the SS program should be returned to the payee to be privately invested or used by the payee as the payee determines. The whole "you are too stupid to invest for your own retirement so the federal govt will do it for you" mentality galls me.

 

Military pay needs to be looked at. Not sure my idea would result in any savings, but I'd raise the pay of the lower ranks and decrease the pay of the upper ranks.

 

I'd eliminate VA benefits to persons making above a certain amount of income. I'd also raise the 10% disability percentage. While I certainly appreciate the contributions all veterans have made, only those unable to afford the services paid for by benefits should receive the benefits. Heck, I'm probably eligible for some VA benefits. I've never looked into them because I can afford the services I need. I didn't join the military for future benefits. Here's a quick summary of benefits and eligibility: http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/summaryVAbenefits.pdf

 

Medicare needs to be treated the same as Social Security. It is not the federal govt's responsibility to plan and pay for health insurance for the elderly.

 

Farm subsidies need to be dramatically cut and refocused on and to the small farmers; not the large corporations. See: http://farm.ewg.org/summary.php

 

Mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated. Actually a lot of deductions should be eliminated, including charitable giving. If that's a person's motivation for giving, shame on him or her.

I

Mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated. Actually a lot of deductions should be eliminated, including charitable giving. If that's a person's motivation for giving, shame on him or her.

 

In a normal economy (ie not today's) would the elimination have any negative impact on the housing market and associated jobs?

I'm not disagreeing, but what happens to the money paid into the system by those of us who've been paying into the system for 20+ years? Do we get a refund of what we've paid in? Would we only phase it out for those under a certain age?

I think it could be done a number of ways. Set an age for example 50 (just pulled out of the air). Anyone over 50 still gets SS, anyone under does not. If you are under 50 that money is returned to you to be invested into an IRA or 401k of some kind. A minimum % of your check each week must go to that same retirement fund. You can put more but there would be a min. Everyone over 50 has the same option as the under 50 but they can also opt to keep the current SS program. Medicare would be the same type of program. Anyone under 50 would have that money returned to be placed in a medical savings account. You would be required to put a min amount each week into that account but could put more if you want.

Would Mon, Wed and Fri mail delivery cut costs substantially? I'd be fine with reduced delivery. What would be the negatives and would the negatives be of significance?

 

You'd be cutting a lot of jobs in that scenario. And not many people would be interested in a 3-day job when there would be better jobs at better pay available in other fields. And while mail volume is nowhere near what it was 20+ years ago it is still very heavy. Perhaps one reduced day of delivery would be in order.

You'd be cutting a lot of jobs in that scenario. And not many people would be interested in a 3-day job when there would be better jobs at better pay available in other fields. And while mail volume is nowhere near what it was 20+ years ago it is still very heavy. Perhaps one reduced day of delivery would be in order.

 

At the very least Saturdays need to be eliminated. But what if you went to 4 days per week, 10 hour days.

At the very least Saturdays need to be eliminated. But what if you went to 4 days per week, 10 hour days.

 

Agreed on the Saturday's part, but businesses haven't been real excited about that. The post office has discussed removal delivery on Tuesday, but the workers aren't thrilled with that because even though Tuesday isn't a huge mail day, it's in the middle of the week and would be disruptive to the work week and the amount of mail that would come in on Wednesday.

 

I'm all for the removal of Saturdays, or at least the removal of a day somewhere. But I just don't think it will happen.

In a normal economy (ie not today's) would the elimination have any negative impact on the housing market and associated jobs?

 

Maybe. I really don't care to be subsidizing the housing market and associated jobs. Let those industries stand on their own two feet.

You'd be cutting a lot of jobs in that scenario. And not many people would be interested in a 3-day job when there would be better jobs at better pay available in other fields. And while mail volume is nowhere near what it was 20+ years ago it is still very heavy. Perhaps one reduced day of delivery would be in order.

 

I've got no problem cutting jobs created by unnecessary spending. As for the no interest in a 3 day job issue: cut the number of workers perhaps in half. Have them run one route on Mon, Wed and Friday and another route on Tues, Thurs and Saturday. Then you have full time jobs that people would be interested in. Do we really need (as opposed to want) mail delivery every day but Sunday? I don't think so.

I've got no problem cutting jobs created by unnecessary spending. As for the no interest in a 3 day job issue: cut the number of workers perhaps in half. Have them run one route on Mon, Wed and Friday and another route on Tues, Thurs and Saturday. Then you have full time jobs that people would be interested in. Do we really need (as opposed to want) mail delivery every day but Sunday? I don't think so.

 

Interesting way of looking at. Not a bad plan.

Completely disagree with this.

 

Now there's a surprise.

Cuts have to be made everywhere. Everyone has to sacrifice. The country needs leaders right now to sell the sacrifice to the public. It is a great opportunity for President Obama to be a leader. How should he spin it? Like we're fighting a war? Six years of toil, tears and sweat to produce a solvent country? People of all political stripes, I think, are coming to the realization that strong measures need to employed.

I've got no problem cutting jobs created by unnecessary spending. As for the no interest in a 3 day job issue: cut the number of workers perhaps in half. Have them run one route on Mon, Wed and Friday and another route on Tues, Thurs and Saturday. Then you have full time jobs that people would be interested in. Do we really need (as opposed to want) mail delivery every day but Sunday? I don't think so.

 

Interesting way of looking at. Not a bad plan.

 

:thumb:

Does anyone think that the price of a stamp will go down if LN's plan is implemented?

Easy cuts from my perspective would include costs per prisioner, ongoing pay for politicians, selling any company the govt owns back to the private sector, and entitlement programs.