HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Spending Cuts Do Not Equa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:57 PM

 

Spending Cuts Do Not Equate to Benefit Cuts

Cutting funding of inefficiencies in popular social programs such as Social Security and Medicare is good. It leaves more funding for actual benefits.

Let them spin this as anti-democratic.

Obama is placating the Right with the good kind of savings, the kind that increases efficiency and preserves benefits.

10 replies, 956 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Spending Cuts Do Not Equate to Benefit Cuts (Original post)
Neon2012 Dec 2012 OP
Skittles Dec 2012 #1
Neon2012 Dec 2012 #3
Skittles Dec 2012 #4
Neon2012 Dec 2012 #5
John2 Dec 2012 #9
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #2
truebluegreen Dec 2012 #6
Neon2012 Dec 2012 #7
truebluegreen Dec 2012 #10
Overseas Dec 2012 #8

Response to Neon2012 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:00 PM

1. please, do tell us what the inefficiences are

and what the exact proposals are that deal with them; thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:08 PM

3. What were they when Romney/Ryan blamed him for 760B in Medicare cuts?

 

Obviously this is a game of perception.

Example, if you want an end to tax breaks for people making over 500K you start the negotiation at 250K.

Most of you don't trust Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon2012 (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:15 PM

4. "most of you" ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:29 PM

5. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon2012 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:38 AM

9. I don't like his Foreign Policy

 

period. They rather snip away at social programs than cut back on the real wasteful spending. Congress is maintaining their Empire. Congress has 250 millionaires. They are an elite class, competing against each other for power. We got people in our Congress with Foreign investments. That is corrupt to me. It is a conflict of Interest. When someone bought up Susan Rice's assets, it stunned me. I thought she was a career Ambassador?

And I still don't believe Pickering's report on Benghazi. It is better to take the fall, then maybe expose what you were really doing in Benghazi, besides conducting Foreign relations. I don't believe our government at all for both Parties. I just get the sense, the practical people are demonizing the left and Right. I don't consider myself an extremist, and i don't consider Governments' runned by greedy Wall Street Vultures practical. Especially when they start screwing me around at the expense of my pockets. I'm going to give an example again, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and other equity investment groups,I would like to know do they have Foreign investments in countries like Afghanistan? Do they have any contractual agreements with the karzai Government and who has the rights to mine the Gold and Silver mines in that country? What connections do American investors also have in the Chinese economy.

The reason I'm enquiring is the number of U.S. billionaires versus the Chinese. Why aren't there as many Billionaires in China as there is in the U.S. because it isn't even close? The same case with millionaires. I'm just following the money and it leads to the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon2012 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:01 PM

2. That might (might) be true with Medicare/Medicaid...

but from what I'm reading about Social Security (which is famously efficient in its operations), it's a benefit cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon2012 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 PM

6. Slowing the growth of the cost-of-living increase

is a CUT IN BENEFITS.

And Social Security is already overwhelmingly efficient. It is not like some private industry has their fingers in the pie (although they'd like to, wouldn't they?).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:47 PM

7. I wouldn't know.

 

I'm sure savings can be found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon2012 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:28 AM

10. SSI is just about the most efficient program there is.

Medicare is not far behind.

Stop assuming that government programs are by definition wasteful. The waste that was recently cut out of Medicare was a result of private companies in the Medicare Advantage program (a Republican innovation) skimming profits for themselves.

This happens EVERY TIME they try to privatize public programs: transportation depts, utility companies, medical, prisons, defense, whatever. The private company gets handed a government contract on the premise that they can do the work for less and what happens is they find a way to cut their costs, or raise prices so that they can pocket the difference.

You know the power outages on the East Coast that go on for weeks after big storms? Private utility companies cut down on maintenance and available crews to save money and then don't have the means to deal with major disasters.

Check out what private contractors make, as opposed to soldiers--the private vs public versions of our Defense department.

See all those signs on the highway, naming specific companies doing repairs? Before privatization cities and states had their own crews and did their own maintenance, with a limited budget for equipment upgrades, and zero profit .

There are many things that the government can do, better, for less. If you don't know, learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Neon2012 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:17 AM

8. Cost of Living Adjustments are a benefit. The Chained CPI gives SSI recipients less than that.

Therefore it is a cut.

Give them back the COLA.

And raise more revenue from where all the revenue went over the past 30 years-- to the tippy top. If a measly THREE PERCENT tax increase at the top doesn't work, TRY FOUR PERCENT!

Try a tiny transaction tax on Wall STreet first!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread