Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The sequestered figures for each agency broke down; a good overview of where our money goes
Topic Started: Mar 3 2013, 12:52 AM (1,445 Views)
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 3 2013, 07:02 AM
tomdrobin
Mar 3 2013, 03:23 AM
The document within the page has the info, you just have to click on it and scroll down. It's a long list. Definitely a meat axe approach. My concern is that pulling this much money out of the economy will slow the recovery or worse yet reverse it.

It's not good to make snap judgement on whether a program is necessary or not. No doubt some can be eliminated or combined, but that requires some research.

I think this paranoia about debt is counterproductive. We need stimulus now, and long term austerity.
You'll have to ask Obama and his team why those programs were selected. It was his plan.
There was no picking of winners and losers. It included all the discretionary spending.

Quote:
 
Discretionary spending (vs. Mandatory spending)
Discretionary spending refers to the portion of federal government spending that is decided upon by Congress each fiscal year through appropriations bills. This is different from mandatory spending.

In general, when Congress decides how much it will spend, there are only certain programs they are required to make decisions about on an annual basis. These programs are discretionary, or in other words, the programs Congress has the most “discretion” over. Discretionary spending is usually divided into two categories: defense and non-defense, which is currently equal to about 36% of federal spending (Fiscal year 2011). The remainder of the budget is mandatory spending, which includes interest on the debt.

In contrast to discretionary programs where Congress must make annual spending decisions regarding amounts, the amount spent on mandatory programs is based on formulas already written into law. For example, the amount spent on Social security, the largest mandatory spending program, is not decided upon on an annual basis, but rather is calculated based on what the estimated number of beneficiaries and their required benefits. This is very different from the discretionary portion of the budget allocated to the National Institutes of Health for their research programs for example, where each year a dollar amount is budgeted based on available resources. Sometimes discretionary programs are cut; sometimes they are increased, depending on the priorities of Congress.


http://keepingamericagreat.org/glossary/discretionary-spending/
Edited by tomdrobin, Mar 3 2013, 10:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 3 2013, 09:52 PM
Banandangees
Mar 3 2013, 08:58 PM
I'm watching the Chris Matthews Sunday Morning show as I write this. Dan Rather is on the panel with the other Sunday Morning Show regulars. The major topic is "Entitlements" and how they aren't involved in the "sequester cuts," that the sequester cuts are "disproportional discretionary cuts."

They are discussing the need for "entitlement cuts" and the future if these cuts aren't made. The ironic thing is, these "news panels" for the most part have been silent on the "urgent need for entitlement cuts"..... until now. One panel member said we are all "socialists"... from birth. We have the need to be taken care of, he said. Dan Rather said it will require "leadership" to bring us out of it. The lady panelist (British.. what else) said health care entitlements are a major problem here and in Europe as far as debt and deficit go. They talked about raising the Medicare age to 70. They talked about the Medicaid entitlement. They talked about cuts in services. WHY NOW is the Chris Matthews show stressing the importance of "entitlement cuts?"

Dan Rather spoke of a missed opportunity and leadership.... funny, Mitt Romney just spoke on Fox about "a missed opportunity" on the same topic.

Why now does the big issue becomes "entitlements?" Where was this urgency before?

Of course, there must be a punch line down the road.
I think you're wrong about that, Ban. I watch "liberal" MSM and the idea of containing entitlement costs has been on the agenda for some time. However, do you consider starting two unpaid for wars, a huge tax cut, also unpaid for, and a new drug benefit not paid for, as entitlement spending. Those things certainly benefited a disproportionate number of people, just as other so-called entitlement programs disproportionately benefit some people.

Perhaps occasionally "entitlements" have been a slight topic on MSNBC, (the Chris Matthews was aired on our local ABC station this morning). and the other alphabet news media... but perhaps if the topic pressure had led to serious bipartisan/administrative discussion over the last four years, the disproportionate, discretionary spending increase cuts would not have been necessary in such a disproportion way.

It's not how you or I label/define "entitlements," it's what government, economists and historians call entitlements as related to our "social system." Wars though, I certainly don't call war an entitlement any more than I call "road building" an entitlement.

Defined:
"entitlements" (plural of en·ti·tle·ment (Noun))

1.The fact of having a right to something.
2.The amount to which a person has a right.

In our case (the case of this discussion) "entitlements" are a politically defined "right" as opposed to a "right" as defined in the Constitution or it's amendments.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Entitlements are like Rights, there is no such thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Mar 3 2013, 10:21 PM
Mountainrivers
Mar 3 2013, 09:52 PM
Banandangees
Mar 3 2013, 08:58 PM
I'm watching the Chris Matthews Sunday Morning show as I write this. Dan Rather is on the panel with the other Sunday Morning Show regulars. The major topic is "Entitlements" and how they aren't involved in the "sequester cuts," that the sequester cuts are "disproportional discretionary cuts."

They are discussing the need for "entitlement cuts" and the future if these cuts aren't made. The ironic thing is, these "news panels" for the most part have been silent on the "urgent need for entitlement cuts"..... until now. One panel member said we are all "socialists"... from birth. We have the need to be taken care of, he said. Dan Rather said it will require "leadership" to bring us out of it. The lady panelist (British.. what else) said health care entitlements are a major problem here and in Europe as far as debt and deficit go. They talked about raising the Medicare age to 70. They talked about the Medicaid entitlement. They talked about cuts in services. WHY NOW is the Chris Matthews show stressing the importance of "entitlement cuts?"

Dan Rather spoke of a missed opportunity and leadership.... funny, Mitt Romney just spoke on Fox about "a missed opportunity" on the same topic.

Why now does the big issue becomes "entitlements?" Where was this urgency before?

Of course, there must be a punch line down the road.
I think you're wrong about that, Ban. I watch "liberal" MSM and the idea of containing entitlement costs has been on the agenda for some time. However, do you consider starting two unpaid for wars, a huge tax cut, also unpaid for, and a new drug benefit not paid for, as entitlement spending. Those things certainly benefited a disproportionate number of people, just as other so-called entitlement programs disproportionately benefit some people.

Perhaps occasionally "entitlements" have been a slight topic on MSNBC, (the Chris Matthews was aired on our local ABC station this morning). and the other alphabet news media... but perhaps if the topic pressure had led to serious bipartisan/administrative discussion over the last four years, the disproportionate, discretionary spending increase cuts would not have been necessary in such a disproportion way.

It's not how you or I label/define "entitlements," it's what government, economists and historians call entitlements as related to our "social system." Wars though, I certainly don't call war an entitlement any more than I call "road building" an entitlement.

Defined:
"entitlements" (plural of en·ti·tle·ment (Noun))

1.The fact of having a right to something.
2.The amount to which a person has a right.

In our case (the case of this discussion) "entitlements" are a politically defined "right" as opposed to a "right" as defined in the Constitution or it's amendments.





MSNBC is only one of many MSM outlets. Google NY Times articles on entitlements or the Washington Post, or any number of other so called liberal media. I think you will be surprised at how many articles there are regarding entitlements and entitlement spending.

"It's not how you or I label/define "entitlements," it's what government, economists and historians call entitlements as related to our "social system."

You might be content letting someone else define entitlement for you, but I'm not. I think subsidies of all kinds can be defined as entitlements. Tax loopholes are the most egregious of them all, imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thumper
Mar 3 2013, 10:27 PM
Entitlements are like Rights, there is no such thing.
Explain, please.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Entitlements like social security are provided for by law. And, as such can be taken away by law if there is adequate political support. Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the constitution and are grounded in natural law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 3 2013, 10:30 PM
Banandangees
Mar 3 2013, 10:21 PM
Mountainrivers
Mar 3 2013, 09:52 PM
Banandangees
Mar 3 2013, 08:58 PM
I'm watching the Chris Matthews Sunday Morning show as I write this. Dan Rather is on the panel with the other Sunday Morning Show regulars. The major topic is "Entitlements" and how they aren't involved in the "sequester cuts," that the sequester cuts are "disproportional discretionary cuts."

They are discussing the need for "entitlement cuts" and the future if these cuts aren't made. The ironic thing is, these "news panels" for the most part have been silent on the "urgent need for entitlement cuts"..... until now. One panel member said we are all "socialists"... from birth. We have the need to be taken care of, he said. Dan Rather said it will require "leadership" to bring us out of it. The lady panelist (British.. what else) said health care entitlements are a major problem here and in Europe as far as debt and deficit go. They talked about raising the Medicare age to 70. They talked about the Medicaid entitlement. They talked about cuts in services. WHY NOW is the Chris Matthews show stressing the importance of "entitlement cuts?"

Dan Rather spoke of a missed opportunity and leadership.... funny, Mitt Romney just spoke on Fox about "a missed opportunity" on the same topic.

Why now does the big issue becomes "entitlements?" Where was this urgency before?

Of course, there must be a punch line down the road.
I think you're wrong about that, Ban. I watch "liberal" MSM and the idea of containing entitlement costs has been on the agenda for some time. However, do you consider starting two unpaid for wars, a huge tax cut, also unpaid for, and a new drug benefit not paid for, as entitlement spending. Those things certainly benefited a disproportionate number of people, just as other so-called entitlement programs disproportionately benefit some people.

Perhaps occasionally "entitlements" have been a slight topic on MSNBC, (the Chris Matthews was aired on our local ABC station this morning). and the other alphabet news media... but perhaps if the topic pressure had led to serious bipartisan/administrative discussion over the last four years, the disproportionate, discretionary spending increase cuts would not have been necessary in such a disproportion way.

It's not how you or I label/define "entitlements," it's what government, economists and historians call entitlements as related to our "social system." Wars though, I certainly don't call war an entitlement any more than I call "road building" an entitlement.

Defined:
"entitlements" (plural of en·ti·tle·ment (Noun))

1.The fact of having a right to something.
2.The amount to which a person has a right.

In our case (the case of this discussion) "entitlements" are a politically defined "right" as opposed to a "right" as defined in the Constitution or it's amendments.





MSNBC is only one of many MSM outlets. Google NY Times articles on entitlements or the Washington Post, or any number of other so called liberal media. I think you will be surprised at how many articles there are regarding entitlements and entitlement spending.

"It's not how you or I label/define "entitlements," it's what government, economists and historians call entitlements as related to our "social system."

You might be content letting someone else define entitlement for you, but I'm not. I think subsidies of all kinds can be defined as entitlements. Tax loopholes are the most egregious of them all, imo.
You're just blowing more smoke again MR.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Mar 3 2013, 10:32 PM
Entitlements like social security are provided for by law. And, as such can be taken away by law if there is adequate political support. Constitutional rights are guaranteed by the constitution and are grounded in natural law.
That's kinda what I wrote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
There are no "rights" naturally or God given. Rights are what men in power 'give' and take.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thumper
Mar 3 2013, 10:36 PM
There are no "rights" naturally or God given. Rights are what men in power 'give' and take.
Then they are rights, just given and taken by people in power.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis