CPI and Social Security

[musical marv]

Do you think Obama should start to cut the SS program based on the CPI?

 

[riser]

SS, no. People paid into that to get that. Adjusting the amounts to be distributed in the future is on the table though.

But from my personal experience, the cuts are strictly being used to affect people to sway influence. Items that can be cut, aren't getting cut. Only stuff that directly affects people is being targeted.

 

[musical marv]

SS, no. People paid into that to get that. Adjusting the amounts to be distributed in the future is on the table though.

But from my personal experience, the cuts are strictly being used to affect people to sway influence. Items that can be cut, aren't getting cut. Only stuff that directly affects people is being targeted.

What should be cut in your opinion?

 

[riser]

Foreign aid should be reduced and eliminated in some cases. Research in not essential areas should be reduced. Government entities can be reduced and/or eliminate. In fact, I will specifically call out the group who decides what goes on postal stamps to start.

Overall, I believe every aspect of government overspends and wastes. Therefore I would argue that all government needs to find a place to reduce, permanently, 5% of spending. This can be completed through implementing Lean Techniques and review of procedures at the lower levels, not managed from up high.

Government has a tendancy to manage from high up and let things filter down without knowing how things changes from the 50,000 foot view, to the micro and macro levels.

There is plenty of excessive spending this country can cut without impacting anything remotely signifcant. It comes down to changing the mentality that the government does not have unlimited funding and priorities are not all the same. Some things are more important than others; people will need to be upset that their mutli-million dollar art sculpture may not be as important and developing antibiotics to save lives.

 

[musical marv]

Foreign aid should be reduced and eliminated in some cases. Research in not essential areas should be reduced. Government entities can be reduced and/or eliminate. In fact, I will specifically call out the group who decides what goes on postal stamps to start.

Overall, I believe every aspect of government overspends and wastes. Therefore I would argue that all government needs to find a place to reduce, permanently, 5% of spending. This can be completed through implementing Lean Techniques and review of procedures at the lower levels, not managed from up high.

Government has a tendancy to manage from high up and let things filter down without knowing how things changes from the 50,000 foot view, to the micro and macro levels.

There is plenty of excessive spending this country can cut without impacting anything remotely signifcant. It comes down to changing the mentality that the government does not have unlimited funding and priorities are not all the same. Some things are more important than others; people will need to be upset that their mutli-million dollar art sculpture may not be as important and developing antibiotics to save lives.

You are correct.They are cutting the wrong things and saving the nonsense.

 

[riser]

Where I work we were able to reduce our budget 20% by cutting non-essential things done around here. No one was laid off, hours reduced, etc. No, instead we stopped buying excessive items, stop excessive spending.. and we cut our budget 20% without impacting jobs or our main mission(s). No loss of work.. yet we cut 20% of our budget.

It is doable. But what happens when people realize we can operate with less government spending without any impact? Could it be that the government can actually shrink while receiving the same service level?? What a concept..

 

[musical marv]

Where I work we were able to reduce our budget 20% by cutting non-essential things done around here. No one was laid off, hours reduced, etc. No, instead we stopped buying excessive items, stop excessive spending.. and we cut our budget 20% without impacting jobs or our main mission(s). No loss of work.. yet we cut 20% of our budget.

It is doable. But what happens when people realize we can operate with less government spending without any impact? Could it be that the government can actually shrink while receiving the same service level?? What a concept..

That is the problem with Obama he is a big excessive spender.Shrink the Government is right in some ways and in others no.Entitlement programs and education and research no.The other nonsense yes especially pet projects which makes no sense half of the time.

 

[riser]

Sometimes you need to stop and/or take a step back in order to move forward. Some research I think can be delayed, entitlements need to be reviewed, and pet projects and this pork type dealings need to be elminated. People need to know what the person really stands for, instead of what they're bringing home.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9994865/George-W-Bush-was-he-really-that-bad.html

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The very fact many want a more fed led way, and not to let the states themselves be incubators for legislation etc shows the wrong headedness that pervades our cy= current scenario.
Who better to make useful cuts than those who spend the money , and not thru some approximated appotion ideal, but actually filling out the billets.
Its been a certain mantra from a certain position for a long time.
riser, your link shows the reasoning behind the disdain held for GW, and for the life of me, I cant figure out why the libs dont believe conservatives do hold it.
And certainly wont accept the likeness between him and Mr BO, yet have used Bushes responses time and again to defend Mr BO.

I agree, those that actually write the checks should make the cuts, with some kind of incentive, be it punitive to reach certain goals, or expansive if exceded, tho done with those who made the cuts, used in wise ways