I get the sense that DU would've preferred no cuts and continuing current spending levels.

[LLStarks]

Other than defense and getting rid of tax cuts, I can't imagine a single thing that your average DUer would agree to cut.

Once the details of the 39 billion emerge, I imagine a furor is going to erupt.

[barbtries]

1. i prefer cuts to WAR

not to education and other programs of social uplift. i also support raising revenues through taxing the rich and corporations such as GE.

[d_b]

20. ditto

let me know when you find that political party.

[xchrom]

2. if the dems would do a better job of addressing these issues: taxing the rich,

ending corporate welfare, renegotiating our 'free trade' agreements, cutting DoD so that it truly represents the kind of Peace dividend we should have gotten when the soviet union collapsed, and last but not least -- end the illegal wars -- you would hearts and flowers break out all over the place here -- and even probably some agreements on cuts.

[SoCalNative]

15. You KNOW that is not going to happen

The rich control the corporations that control the politicians. That's not going to change.

Personally I wish that we would close ALL military bases in every foreign country and bring the troops back home to serve here and ONLY here.

But that won't happen either.

[Buzz Clik]

3. +1. And there is one guarantee here at DU:

It will be Obama's fault.

[northoftheborder]

6. Not guaranteed. Shared guilt with Dem. leaders.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Agreed, but there will be those...

[northoftheborder]

4. "Other than defense and getting rid of tax cuts, "

That's a trillion dollar cut right there. Your comment seems snarky and "unDU like". You bet a furor may erupt when we find out what's been cut. I'm very pessimistic.

[sufrommich]

7. "unDU like". As opposed to the "Democrats suck!" thread? nt

[johnnie]

8. "Democrats suck!"

That is very DU these days.

[Autumn]

5. I get the sense most of DU don't

want cuts to safety net programs and prefer we quit spending money on 3 wars and would really like these politicians to quit playing with women's rights and women's health care.

[aquart]

9. What is the point of imagining OUR imagination?

Which seems based on the bizarre belief that people here are in lockstep agreement like Regressives.

I wanted punitive taxation on our massive fortunes and increased spending to meet our actual NEEDS. But that's just me. I have also repeatedly espoused a 90% war tax on gross incomes over $7 million.

Your imagination falls short.

[Scuba]

17. +1

[bluestate10]

10. Taxes on people that are getting away with not paying their proportional fair

share have to be raised. BUT. Government programs that fail to meet their defined objectives have to be reformed or ended. There is only so much money for government. So called progressives on DU must realize those salient facts. While I have no respect for the rich that take any means to avoid paying a fair share of taxes while enjoying the fruits of liberty, I take as much offense with the progressive position that a person must be taxed until their eyeballs fall out because they are rich and that every program that serve the needed is well run and there is no graft or inefficiency anywhere to be found. There is something called an appropriate operating space that progressives have no sense of.

[miscsoc]

22. The rich are taxed incredibly lightly today.

To be honest I have very few moral qualms towards confiscatory taxation of the super-rich. Tax rates should be at like, the apex of the Laffer Curve (which, by the way, is way to the right of anything we have now) - tax them as much as you can until it starts being counterproductive

[iemitsu]

31. this years tax revenues are the second

lowest (as a percentage of the GNP) in our countries history.
it is not that government programs waste as much as the government has stopped collecting from anyone except those who can't afford it.
sure there is waste but it is in farm subsidies, corporate welfare, and defense. none of the rest is that bad.

[Demit]

12. The rise in the deficit is roughly equal to the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

There wouldn't have been this need for 'austerity' if the tax cuts had been allowed to sunset.

Most DUers are sentient beings. Of course there isn't anything we'd want to cut, besides the Pentagon budget. The rest of us are going to be in a world of hurt while the very wealthy, and the Pentagon, won't feel a thing.

[ladjf]

21. The "herd of elephants in the room" is the rich who are stealing

the human race into abject poverty and slavery, not to mention a host of other terrible consequences such as the environment.

[ladjf]

24. Most of the ;posters on this thread know enough about what is

happening in the world to be able to do a better job in Washington that most of the politicians who are there. If, however, one of these DU'ers got elected, would they instantly turn into crooks?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KeepItReal]

19. And economists like Stiglitz says these cuts only make the recession worse

They do not lead to job creation.

In fact we should have more govenrment spending in the downturn to generate jobs. Deficits in these circumstances don't matter. You fight deficits when you have more tax revenue coming in from an improved economy.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Yup, many of the cuts will become systemic revenue reducers which will continue the cycle.

In fact, that is the point. I have no idea why most refuse to accept that Republicans actually do mean what they say when they say they want to "shrink the pig".

They are relentless in pursuit of that. They suggest cuts that logically have to reduce demand and lower wages system wide.

Follow the fucking money people. Follow it through the economy.

[LLStarks]

25. We can demolish spending and then look at overhead in our favorite programs. WE CAN DO BOTH.

Don't ever tell me to fuck off again.

[JVS]

26. Refer to post 13 for further instructions.

[LLStarks]

28. Cutting defense will go a very long way, but what then? Nothing else can even be discussed?

Are you of the belief that cutting defense can be done without a compromise?

[iemitsu]

32. not even if you ask for it?

the small guy has given too much.

[LLStarks]

33. I'd gladly take 38 billion in program cuts in return for a 38% reduction in defense spending.

I'm just trying to be realistic since we don't have supermajorities in congress.

[iemitsu]

43. it is not realistic to cut all social spending

especially when so many are in need.
we should cut the defense spending and then we would not have to cut the social spending.

[miscsoc]

14. Seems sensible to me, there is no need for cuts

Hike taxes on the rich to reasonable levels, and punish anyone who tries to avoid taxes by moving their wealth, and the budget problem is dissolved.

America remains the world's dominant economic power and it has the capacity to do these things. It just lacks the will.

[donquijoterocket]

16. try

imagining all that dross that grows out of that five-sided flophouse on the Potomac, tax breaks and subsidies to various industries, and the grossly unequal tax code that has warren Buffett's secretary paying at a higher marginal rate than the rate than he does which Warren himself has pointed out a time or two.

[LonePirate]

18. We are not spending too much - we are taxed too little.

We would not be in this present situation were it not for the Bush tax cuts and his wars.

[donquijoterocket]

23. St.

Ronny the Forgetful's tax cuts started us down that hill, Bush just maintained the momentum and direction.Not to defend the Shrub,but he was just doing as his class instincts-reinforced by wads of money-instructed.If they'd ever work up the wherewithal to rescind them I suspect things would brighten in fairly short order.

[nc4bo]

27. Between these ridiculous tax cuts for the rich and privileged, the endless war profiteers are doing

this country's regular folks a HUGE disservice.

Won't even discuss the mess the Wall$treet crowd is allowed to get away with.

[iemitsu]

29. we need to cut the tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations.

it is stupid to suggest that we should take so many cuts when the government thinks it has the funds to give huge amounts of money to those who don't need it and don't deserve it.
don't act as if it is we who are being unreasonable.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shandris]

34. I don't have a problem with looking at social programs for TRUE WASTE...

...but there's not NEARLY as much of that as people are led to believe. Most of it is covered in redundant oversight that was forced by the Republicans pointing out one error somewhere and screaming about 'excess waste', then complaining that an oversight capacity was created to shut them the fuck up.

Tax the wealthy with reasonable rates -- and yes, an increasingly high tax rate IS reasonable. Remove the tax loopholes. A bunch of them will move to China, and that's alright -- they're welcome to. Caveat, they get to own nothing in the US.

But the goddamn family empires have to end. If you truly believe that only those who work for it should be rich -- and all the rich seem to believe this -- then surely you'd have no problems with raising the estate tax to 100% above 1 million dollars. The days of leaving 300 million dollars for a Paris Hilton need to end. Hey, you can't take it with you and these little bastards need to work too. Sure, you'd have a group of people try to leave the country when they near death, pass it on, then have the descendant emigrate back. Same rule applies then to emigrating former citizens. No loopholes.

Cut the defense spending by an appropriate amount. I don't despise the military, but I don't like the excessive use of it. Cut the operational budget by no less than 50% and, more importantly, cut the subsidies to defense companies. If they can produce worthy products for the military then the military can purchase them. Giving them the money to do so, THEN buying it, is capital theft from the People.

I could go on, but let's not hear about how we just want to avoid looking at our social programs when there are BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of dollars available to look at if we'd only take off the goddamn blinders.

[bvar22]

35. DU would fit in nicely with the MAJORITY of Americans.

Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Broken Promises, and Whiny Excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Isn't interesting that even if vast majorities of the American people agree with "our" position

that there is always some mystical center to reach for and that a "compromise" must be sought?

Center isn't about any group of voters, it used to be about the status quo but is now moving toward being the beneficiaries of the status quo's objectives.

[Zax2me]

37. Right on.

There isn't much else that would be seen as a positive cut.
The govt is supposed to keep on spending and printing money while we struggle to make house payments and keep up with inflation and gas prices.
It's about time the govt is being held accountable to overspend by only a few trillion.
We'll get to balancing the budget once we are able to cut overspending.
Right now that is like pulling teeth.
One step at a time, right?!

[krabigirl]

38. I would prefer they cut offense spending, by quite a bit.

[sarcasmo]

39. Cut the wars and the deficit will drop. 8 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.

[Thunderstruck]

41. ONE FUCKING CUT...you got that? ONE CUT...

War spending.

THAT's the ONLY cut that was necessary to meet the 2011 budget. With that one cut, no other cuts would have been necessary.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Festivito]

44. That 30-something billion might cost us hundreds of billions in years to come.

I'd like to see a CBO estimate.

[Bluebear]

45. I get the sense that the tax cuts for the rich could have covered all these spending levels.