So, what should the Republicans cut?

[KenH]

It's no wonder the libertarian party is no more than nuisance and will never be a political force to be reckoned with.

So what? I no longer buy into the Republican/Democrat's scam. I vote for what I want now. Period. Being political "relevant" no longer matters to me. The Siren's call of "relevancy" no longer works on me. My ears have wax in them.

 

[billwald]

The alternative minimum income tax was passed decades ago when most working people made less than $10K. If the existing tax bills dies at least hall of all Americans who call themselves "middle class" will pay the alternate tax and their marginal tax rate will jump to 45%. What say you Republicans?

 

[Salty]

Thats why I say do away with all - I mean every last - tax and only have the automatic electronic tax. would be about .3% - on all transactions.

 

[Jim1999]

In my opinion, as an outsider, Sarah Palin!
Cheers,

Jim

 

[StefanM]

I don't get why so many want to cut the Department of Education.

In order to prevent the complete collapse of the American system of higher education, you'd have to have another department take over these responsibilities.

DOE administers ALL of federal financial aid for higher education. Pell Grants, student loans, etc. are all included in this.

If we eliminate these programs, colleges would collapse all over the country. There is no private alternative; student loans are far too risky to make on any significant level without government backing. This would increase unemployment and reduce access to education. Is this really what conservatives want? If the GOP did this, the Democrats would control Congress for decades.

 

[StefanM]

The Department of Education should be reduced to a five cubicle office system with a receptionist. Their only job is to take federal dollars given to education and send it to the states, then call to make sure the checks got there..

This is completely false. Federal financial aid is overseen by the DOE.

 

[kyredneck]

....Nothing really can be done with the Senate and Presidency still under Democrat control.

That's OK by me. IMO, gridlock is a good thing if that's all we can get for now. And the House CAN jam things up. I expect Obama will step on it again and again and again before 2012, and there will be more gains then, IF the Republican party can attain/maintain some unity amongst themselves.

 

[Zenas]

Z...is that your own personal wish list?

Yes, but after reading through the thread I like rbell's list better. I also like SBCPreacher's list but it's only a drop in the bucket. If we could adopt rbell's list in toto, the budget would soon be in the black.

We should also watch what happens in England and, if those cuts work, perhaps adopt most of them here.

 

[Matt Black]

David Cameron, our Prime Minister, has basically gone on record as saying that the cuts here amount to his political suicide note but he wants to put the interests of the country before his own political career and that of the Conservative Party. I think he's doing himself down - I think the mood at large in the populace is one of grim determination that the cuts are needed and we're all going to have to roll up our sleeves and get on with it.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I don't get why so many want to cut the Department of Education.

I will try and answer that for you Stefan, because it’s a huge waste of our money. Education needs to be funded and controlled on a local level; the same needs do not exist nationwide. Also most of the grants and loans are wasted.

Federal intervention in lower education, from pre K to high school undermines local authority and puts unnecessary burdens on our schools. Programs like “No Child Left Behind” that put regulation in place but lack funding. To many government programs are too specific and require matching local funds. Get the federal government out of our schools, that is what we have local school boards for.

At the university level, ED’s idea of grants and loans is backwards to start with. Educational grants should not be given out based on need, but based on potential for success. Giving money to kids who will never graduate is like flushing it away. Give scholarships based on performance, not race or income.

70% of the high school class of 2010 is enrolled in some form of education right now. I don’t remember where I read that but it is true. One big reason for this is lack of jobs, but another is the abundance of federal money. Years ago when you got to the college level students had a different attitude, they were invested in their education. They or their parents were paying large sums to attend and the result was working harder. Over half our college students today are going to school courtesy of our tax dollars and the result is the problems we see in high schools carries over. Lack of attendance, lack of study, failed assignments. The kids don’t care because it’s all free. I know of a student locally that has enrolled in our community college twice. He applied for Pell grant money and received it, twice. He has never attended a day of classes. I know there is supposed to be a program to get that money back but there is no enforcement of it.

Educational programs at a national level are a bad idea. I know of several hundred (yes hundred) laptop computers that one of our local schools received free of charge from DE. But then did not come with operating systems and the cost involved in making them operational was beyond what they could spend. They sat in storage until they were obsolete and then they were destroyed, most never being opened.

I am not saying all programs are bad; we have some good ones too. The Teachers scholarship program we have here in NC is great. Students accepted into schools with education majors can get 4 years of school paid for, but they have to commit to teach in a NC public school for at least 4 years after graduation. We have some similar programs for other key jobs. But these are all administered on a state level, not federal.

 

[glfredrick]

That's OK by me. IMO, gridlock is a good thing if that's all we can get for now. And the House CAN jam things up. I expect Obama will step on it again and again and again before 2012, and there will be more gains then, IF the Republican party can attain/maintain some unity amongst themselves.

Like Bill Clinton's second term. Obama will be faced with signing into law some things that he truly does not like, including certain budget cuts, social program deletes (or additions...), etc., in order to carry on the activity of government, but I don't expect any wholesale changes to take place.

What is enacted readily in the House will be passed on to the Senate to die in committee unless some very creative means are used to push things forward, but they still need the signature of the President, who will probably veto as many bills as he just signed over the first two years of his presidency.

IF... If we can just extend the Bush tax cuts and not roll back things like the death tax, it will make a big difference to a lot of people. Many who have the ability to expand business right now are not doing so, knowing that the tax burden will wipe them out, or at least seriously hinder their ability to press forward in the next year or so due to huge adjustments in operating capital and paperwork regulations (1099 form, for instance).

 

[Andy T.]

I don't get why so many want to cut the Department of Education.

In order to prevent the complete collapse of the American system of higher education, you'd have to have another department take over these responsibilities.

DOE administers ALL of federal financial aid for higher education. Pell Grants, student loans, etc. are all included in this.

If we eliminate these programs, colleges would collapse all over the country. There is no private alternative; student loans are far too risky to make on any significant level without government backing. This would increase unemployment and reduce access to education. Is this really what conservatives want? If the GOP did this, the Democrats would control Congress for decades.

Maybe without all that easy money higher education receives, they won't be able to gouge the public with their ridiculously high prices like they have been doing for decades.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Maybe without all that easy money higher education receives, they won't be able to gouge the public with their ridiculously high prices like they have been doing for decades.

What you said is popular, but I agree.

 

[HankD]

Originally Posted by HankD
Republicans need to constantly remind Democrats that 2012 is another opportunity for voters to eliminate them if they don't start voting along more conservative lines.

HankD

They also need to remind themselves of the same thing.

Yes! Thanks for the reminder Tom.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Actually, Republicans will have a kind of control over the Senate after the lame duck seeing a 2/3 or 3/5 majority is needed in the senate to pass a bill which the Democrats will not have after the lame duck.

I believe but I'm not completely sure that the senate can vote to have a simple majority (51 votes) vote for a given bill, however it takes a 2/3 vote for that to happen (what's the point?).

Is there ever the possibility of bill passage with a simple majority in the senate considering a Republican filibuster?

After the Lame Duck, Republican Senators, if unified, will at very least be able to block passage of a bill but can't pass anything unless they can get some additional votes from the democrats and/or independents.

But then there is the presidents VETO brick wall.

However, during the Lame Duck the present Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration can (for instance) ram through the Cap and Trade (Tax on thin air) Bill in a "Read it after we pass it" method.

But I think this would seal their (Progressives) 2012 doom for sure.

HankD

 

[poncho]

Cut away all the government programs you like but we'll never be out of debt until we replace our current debt based monetary system and fiat currency with a sound commodity based system.

In other words, throw out the money changers first or we'll just be spinning our wheels no matter which party has the majority in congress.

 

[KenH]

Cut away all the government programs you like but we'll never be out of debt until we replace our current debt based monetary system and fiat currency with a sound commodity based system.

As Congressman Ron Paul says, "End the Fed." :thumbs:

 

[StefanM]

Maybe without all that easy money higher education receives, they won't be able to gouge the public with their ridiculously high prices like they have been doing for decades.

There is a bottom line cost, though. For universities to function, a significant amount of funding is required. Tuition dollars are only a part of the equation.

It wouldn't be the expensive schools that go under. Non-profit schools that charge large amounts for tuition often have generous financial aid packages and large endowments. Their prestige will keep them afloat.

What would really happen is that a large number of private colleges would die overnight. I know that the Christian university where I work would close the doors overnight if federal financial aid were not available.

For state universities, either the state would have to pick up the slack, or enrollment would likely free fall.

We aren't making a ton of money off of the students. We cost less than most of the local private high schools. If our students didn't have federal financial aid (including loans), they couldn't go to school.

I certainly know I couldn't.

Sure, we can go back to the old days when you went to college if your family were wealthy, but that's not going to help the U.S. compete in the world marketplace.

 

[StefanM]

Actually, Republicans will have a kind of control over the Senate after the lame duck seeing a 2/3 or 3/5 majority is needed in the senate to pass a bill which the Democrats will not have after the lame duck.

I believe but I'm not completely sure that the senate can vote to have a simple majority (51 votes) vote for a given bill, however it takes a 2/3 vote for that to happen (what's the point?).

Is there ever the possibility of bill passage with a simple majority in the senate considering a Republican filibuster?

After the Lame Duck, Republican Senators, if unified, will at very least be able to block passage of a bill but can't pass anything unless they can get some additional votes from the democrats and/or independents.

But then there is the presidents VETO brick wall.

However, during the Lame Duck the present Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration can (for instance) ram through the Cap and Trade (Tax on thin air) Bill in a "Read it after we pass it" method.

But I think this would seal their (Progressives) 2012 doom for sure.

HankD

They don't have 60 votes in the Senate, so I don't see them ramming through anything in the Lame Duck session.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Sure, we can go back to the old days when you went to college if your family were wealthy, but that's not going to help the U.S. compete in the world marketplace.

How about the days when you went to college and worked while you were there to pay for it. My parents didn't pay for my school, I did. My wife's parents didnt pay for her school, she did. She didn't get a dime of federal aide and my aide was limited to a partial military scholarship. We both worked while we were students.

If the student has to work to pay for his education they will be more invested in it, have more at risk, and will work harder to graduate. Government money is killing our students work ethic.