There's No Tooth Fairy and No Free Lunch

So the tea party is wrong to sound the alarm about the deficit issue? The truth is that ANY solution to this problem is going to be painful. Does this truth mean we should just play possum and pretend the deficit will go away on its own? That would not be wise either.
So what do we do? Since you reject the tea party's work then please tell us what we can do. Or is your purpose just to bash the tea party without proposing solutions of your own?

The tea party offers nothing in the way of leadership. They've shown the ability to accumulate lots of followers, nothing more.

You think Dems offer leadership? Their "leadership" has brought record poverty. The Democrat controlled House & Senate is so deplorable folks overwhelmingly want new blood. The fairy tale for dems is over.

So the tea party is wrong to sound the alarm about the deficit issue? The truth is that ANY solution to this problem is going to be painful. Does this truth mean we should just play possum and pretend the deficit will go away on its own? That would not be wise either.
So what do we do? Since you reject the tea party's work then please tell us what we can do. Or is your purpose just to bash the tea party without proposing solutions of your own?

"You Cut" will lower the deficit by .017%-according to the Cato Institute.

I am sorry Senator, I know Paul Revere and that's no Paul Revere.

Our nation could be on a path to fiscal sustainability by spending cuts alone.

But put on your big boy pants because .017% is a sham.

Spending cuts will work but it will take a lot more than is being advertised.

It's simple arithmetic.

You are making a big deal about a web site that allows citizens to propose cuts. No one thinks those are the only cuts needed. Most conservatives are proposing a 2-5% reduction in entitlement spending over a 10 year period. Discretionary spending will have to be cut as well. So will defense.
No one believes this will be painless. But it is necessary. Those who wring their hands and chant "Bad tea party" while offering no solutions of their own are simply part of the problem.[/QUOTE]

You obviously did not read the column.

2%-5% over a 10 year period is insufficient.

This solution was in the column: Cut Spending 20% over a ten year period will put our nation of a path of fiscal sustainability.

Power down your computer and read "Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future" www.nap.edu

This is bi-partisan analysis that proposes a range of solutions:

• Low Tax-Cut Spending
• High Tax- Maintain Spending
• Two alternatives that are roughly 1/3 from the two extremes.

A massive medical overhaul may have been an opportunity to address Medicaid?s structural problems. Yet rather than reform the struggling program, ObamaCare?s authors decided to double down on it. Starting in 2014, all states will have to expand Medicaid eligibility, allowing into the program any individual who makes less than 133 percent of the federal poverty line. That?s 16 million new enrollees, or half of the total number of newly insured, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. The largest group will be nonelderly, nondisabled adults without dependent children.

To cajole state lawmakers into expanding a program that was already straining their budgets, ObamaCare?s authors offered them a classic salesman?s deal: no money down and no payments for the first three years. From 2014 through 2016, the federal government will pick up the full cost of the mandatory coverage expansion. For the four years afterward, states will pick up a rising share of the tab, leveling off at 10 percent in 2020. It?s essentially a federal-match teaser rate, designed to grease the wheels for political acceptance by delaying the pain.

Given the fact that even in the long term the federal government will still be covering 90 percent of the total bill, you might think the states would welcome an easy cash infusion. But the burden of Medicaid is already so high, and state budgets?most of which are constrained by balanced budget requirements and thus cannot rely on deficit spending?are in such dismal shape, that any additional expenses represent a significant fiscal burden. Florida, for example, is already spending $18 billion a year on Medicaid. ObamaCare will add another $1 billion to the tab by 2019. In Arizona the program is seen as fiscally toxic. Monica Coury, a senior staffer at the Arizona bureaucracy that oversees the state?s Medicaid program, told The Wall Street Journal in July: ?We have federal partners talking about expansion of this program. And at the state level, we?re looking at a program that we can?t sustain.? Overall, paying for the added benefits will cost states $21.5 billion by 2020.

You are making a big deal about a web site that allows citizens to propose cuts. No one thinks those are the only cuts needed. Most conservatives are proposing a 2-5% reduction in entitlement spending over a 10 year period. Discretionary spending will have to be cut as well. So will defense.
No one believes this will be painless. But it is necessary. Those who wring their hands and chant "Bad tea party" while offering no solutions of their own are simply part of the problem.[/QUOTE]

You obviously did not read the column.

2%-5% over a 10 year period is insufficient.

This solution was in the column: Cut Spending 20% over a ten year period will put our nation of a path of fiscal sustainability.

Power down your computer and read "Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future" www.nap.edu


This is bi-partisan analysis that proposes a range of solutions:

• Low Tax-Cut Spending
• High Tax- Maintain Spending
• Two alternatives that are roughly 1/3 from the two extremes.

I happen to agree with you, but if the choice is a liberal who will increase spending and a conservative who will decrease spending 2-5% I will take the conservative this time. Maybe next election cycle the conservative will have come to the realization that stronger measures are necessary or someone else with better ideas will run.
Nothing is perfect in this world so you take the best option possible.

What would be wrong with getting the Federal Government out of the education business? Take the 46 billion, cut the spending to 30 billion and use that money to give each state a 500 million block grant with the remaining 5 billion divided equally among the 10 most populous states. Attach no strings to the money so that each state can use the money where it needs it most. Phase these grants out over a 10 year period so as states become more self-sufficient.
Just a thought.

Buz if you are looking to grow your business and gain new new customers then you have knocked of a Hugh population of conservative people.

Conservatives keep their money under the mattress, in their business, or in failed real estate ventures. I don't think he has to worry about Hugh [sic].

Conservatives keep their money under the mattress, in their business, or in failed real estate ventures. I don't think he has to worry about Hugh [sic].