Thread: Goldman Sachs Wants You to Pay-by-the-Mile to Drive on U.S. Roadways

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

And right on time!

As always!

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Couldn't we look into cutting spending on things we don't absolutely need in the budget? If I'm having hard times with my family, I don't look to work 90 hours a week instead of 60 so I can have a lexus. I trade the lexus in and drive a car that's less expensive and less of a strain on the budget.

Seems to me that government, both federal and state/local are more geared to raise taxes instead of cutting expenses that we don't necessarily need at the moment.

The largest percent of the budget is defense spending. You can't cut Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, or interest. TARP only takes up about 4% of the budget. Only about 12% of the budget is "discretionary spending." The problem is we are still in a recession and you need to spend to get out of one. Depending on what you want cut, you could very well be advocating for more people to lose their jobs. Not a very smart solution.

As for states, they have all made massive cuts. There is very little, if any, more that states can cut unless you want to see more cuts to education, police, health, etc. And they are still in the red. To think that this problem can be fixed or helped simply by more spending cuts is just not practical.

I mean I understand that cutting expenses wouldn't solve the problem completely, but I feel it would be extremely helpful toward the bottom line. Percentages mask exactly how much money is being spent, especially if we're talking about the federal budget.

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

I mean I understand that cutting expenses wouldn't solve the problem completely, but I feel it would be extremely helpful toward the bottom line. Percentages mask exactly how much money is being spent, especially if we're talking about the federal budget.

I understand what you are saying, but that really doesn't change my point. Ok, so cuts across the board. That means cutting Medicare, which means less coverage for seniors who can't get health insurance other places because you opposed reforming the system and prefer the status quo. That means cutting Social Security, a program many people's livelihoods depend on. Cutting defense spending, which if we weren't in a recession I would fully support, means people losing their jobs. That means cutting federal funding for other things like already-cash-strapped schools, meaning more job losses. I cannot support an idea that would cause even more hardship during a recession, sorry.

The CBO back in 2001 predicted surpluses of $800 billion for 2009-2012. But then Bush got elected, and we have the situation we have now. Remember, elections have consequences.