Is There ANY Govt. Program We Could Cut That Wouldn't....

[Warfish]

.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?

The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?

For example:

California Senator Barbara Boxer claimed yesterday that Republicans have a "sickness" when it comes to women, and decried the party's efforts to defund women's healthcare.

In a speech to Planned Parenthood in San Jose, Boxer told those in attendance that the mainstream of the GOP is "extreme on women's health." She suggested that Missouri Senator Todd Akin's recent comments reflect views that are well represented in the party at large, and are distressingly in evidence on the Romney-Ryan ticket.

"There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan – if they are elected – would become its top generals," said Boxer, "and it's not going to end until we all say at the polls, 'That's not the country we want.'"

By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?

So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?

And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?

If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics?

That only applies to (R)'s dummy....

[Trades]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?

The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?

For example:



By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?

So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?

And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?

If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.

Might be able to justify cutting oil subsidies. You know that industry only effects white male 1%ers.

[southparkcpa]

Roll back spending to 2008 levels in ALL departments.

[palmetto defender]

Eliminate ALL education loan subsidies and loans.
If a person wants to go to college, let daddy put up his house as collateral. Or perhaps people could consider saving. Or go into the military and get assistance for school. I hear that the bonuses for infantrymen are pretty good.
As for everything else - accross the board reductions. salary freezes in government for everybody. No more GSA boondoggles. No fancy meetings - teleconferences.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?

The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?

For example:



By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?

So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?

And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?

If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.

Excellent post.

As always with these kind of posts, don't expect anything but silence from the left-swinging posters.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?

The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?

For example:



By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?

So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?

And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?

If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.

The answer to your question is no. There are virtually no cuts that could be made to anything without being demagogued. Think about the recent bill to eliminate fraud in the "free cell phone welfare program". Apparently in the 90's a bill was passed to cover phone company bills for welfare recipients. The theory was that everyone has the right to have phone service after all what if an emergency happened and they needed to call 911 but couldn't?

More recently the law was expanded to cover cell phone service because of course every person in America had the RIGHT to a free cell phone. Well if the programs mere existince isn't absurd enough a recent report showed that the cost of the law had grown from around 1/2 billion per year to 4 billion since adding the cell phone component. Further investigation showed that people were using the credit to purchase prepaid cell phones and resell them. Apparently the law allows for the purchase of a new prepaid phone each month. Basically wellfare recipients are abusing the system to profit for themselves. A bill was brought up in the senate to elliminate the cell phone portion of the entitlement and it was shelved by the Democrats. Even the most blatant of wasteful and fraudulent programs could not be adjusted when the Democrats run the show.

As an interesting side note the yearly savings from cutting off the free cell phones is equal to the yearly revenue of Obamas revolutionary Buffet rule.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

The answer to your question is no. There are virtually no cuts that could be made to anything without being demagogued. Think about the recent bill to eliminate fraud in the "free cell phone welfare program". Apparently in the 90's a bill was passed to cover phone company bills for welfare recipients. The theory was that everyone has the right to have phone service after all what if an emergency happened and they needed to call 911 but couldn't?

More recently the law was expanded to cover cell phone service because of course every person in America had the RIGHT to a free cell phone. Well if the programs mere existince isn't absurd enough a recent report showed that the cost of the law had grown from around 1/2 billion per year to 4 billion since adding the cell phone component. Further investigation showed that people were using the credit to purchase prepaid cell phones and resell them. Apparently the law allows for the purchase of a new prepaid phone each month. Basically wellfare recipients are abusing the system to profit for themselves. A bill was brought up in the senate to elliminate the cell phone portion of the entitlement and it was shelved by the Democrats. Even the most blatant of wasteful and fraudulent programs could not be adjusted when the Democrats run the show.

As an interesting side note the yearly savings from cutting off the free cell phones is equal to the yearly revenue of Obamas revolutionary Buffet rule.

Racist

[CraigFL]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?

The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?

For example:



By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?

So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?

And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?

If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.

In a word...no. This war on women because people are opposed to paying for their birth control. Why not a war on men for not paying for condoms? One problem that noone seems to address is fraud in the aid agencies. Example, my wife busted a $50k/month food stamp fraud ring. That's $50k per MONTH in one small town, in one county, in one state. She got no pat on the back. There were no changes in policy. There were no increasing of the fraud dept, nothing. I worked for the State as well, and there are actually people who need some form of aid. However, for every one of them, there are ten that, abuse it, commit fraud, resell for added income, or are multi-generational dependents. I won't even get into how illegal aliens benefit from BEING illegal. And this is just one small part of one aid department, I can only imagine what the entire cost to the taxpayer is across the board.

[MnJetFan]

Just imagine Boxer's mother didn't want children? What a wonderful world!

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Trades

Racist

dems gonna puch'all back in cheins

[SafetyBlitz]

Reform:

Increase the SS collection age.

Replace welfare, except for single mothers, with a public works program.

Lengthen the school day and year without giving teacher's raises.

Cut:

ethanol subsidies

Department of Homeland Security - redundant with FBI/NSA/Law Enforcement

US postal service



This is just off the top of my head. And of course, I would love to cut that military budget...

[IHATEDOLPHINS]

Top of my head I would say get rid of the post office.What is it an 8 billion dollar a year loss?You can get your bills by e-mail.The only mail I get anymore is junk mail.

[Winstonbiggs]

Are there any deductions in the tax code that Republicans can actually name to get rid of in order to reduce rates? Complaining about politicians building their majorities around different constituencies that they in turn take care of seems to ignore our actually Constitutional system.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Are there any deductions in the tax code that Republicans can actually name to get rid of in order to reduce rates? Complaining about politicians building their majorities around different constituencies that they in turn take care of seems to ignore our actually Constitutional system.

Sure, for income taxes I would phase out all deductions except for charity across the board based on income levels. A gradual phase in starting at 250K. I would also eliminate the concept of cap gains, short term, long term, etc and simply tax people at their now lowered rate bracket. If there is some sort of tax advantage for storing cash overseas I would eliminate that as well.

They already do some of this stuff now. Child credits and such in the tax code phase out with families making over a certain amount. Expand it to all the deductions. The system is cleaner when the code is simplified.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?

The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?

For example:



By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?

So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?

And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?

If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.

Military
EPA
Agriculture (farm subsidies, etc.)
Interior (national parks)

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Sure, for income taxes I would phase out all deductions except for charity across the board based on income levels. A gradual phase in starting at 250K. I would also eliminate the concept of cap gains, short term, long term, etc and simply tax people at their now lowered rate bracket. If there is some sort of tax advantage for storing cash overseas I would eliminate that as well.

They already do some of this stuff now. Child credits and such in the tax code phase out with families making over a certain amount. Expand it to all the deductions. The system is cleaner when the code is simplified.

Why should charity be tax deductible? If you want to give to your church or a charity why should that reduce your obligation to our defense, courts, Social welfare, etc., etc., etc.

[SafetyBlitz]

How about eliminating the tax exempt status for religious institutions as well?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Military
EPA
Agriculture (farm subsidies, etc.)
Interior (national parks)

Obviously Millitary.
EPA? Lol, no chance that isn;t described as hurting women , children and minorities more.
Agriculture? Same.

Interior? If it's only parks, maybe, depends on what parks. If any women, child or minority lives within 50 mins, sorry, no, the usual argument will in fact be used.

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Why should charity be tax deductible? If you want to give to your church or a charity why should that reduce your obligation to our defense, courts, Social welfare, etc., etc., etc.

+1

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

How about eliminating the tax exempt status for religious institutions as well?

+1

I'll go one further, all institutions, including so-called advocacy groups and the like.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Obviously Millitary.
EPA? Lol, no chance that isn;t described as hurting women , children and minorities more.
Agriculture? Same.

Interior? If it's only parks, maybe, depends on what parks. If any women, child or minority lives within 50 mins, sorry, no, the usual argument will in fact be used.

No, EPA/Agriculture/Interior would be described as a war on the environment, not war on minorities