Wells Fargo employee crafted Cain's 999 plan

[ATOMonkey]

Oh, please. So, none of those elderly have private resources, or even great wealth, that are pulling government checks? And none of those on the dole are able to work or survive on their own? I find that very difficult to believe. If one-fifth or one-sixth of the population is going to lie down and die if the fedgov goes out of the handout business then we're already doomed.

No they won't lay down and die. You'd need to execute them of course. You can't have that many people protesting in the streets. Nothing would get done!

 

[CarmelHP]

No they won't lay down and die. You'd need to execute them of course. You can't have that many people protesting in the streets. Nothing would get done!

And thus we see how socialism is ALWAYS justified and expanded. QED

 

[ATOMonkey]

He proposed a 60% reduction in Federal Spending. What do you think would happen?

 

[CarmelHP]

He proposed a 60% reduction in Federal Spending. What do you think would happen?

A lot of people would be forced to find work and a lot of people would be forced to use their savings or get help from family, and the few who don't fit into those categories, who are truly unable to work, could probably be taken care of under the reduced expenditures. You seem to think that big government solutions are the only kind that can work.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I am not in favor of big government. I'm simply realistic.

You don't think anyone would protest not getting their government check? No more sec 8, no more SS, no more medicare, no more medicaid, no more SCHIP...

Everyone enrolled in those programs are just going to shrug and go find some work, or move in with their kids or parents?

No protesting, no violence, no political backlash?

 

[CarmelHP]

I am not in favor of big government. I'm simply realistic.

You don't think anyone would protest not getting their government check? No more sec 8, no more SS, no more medicare, no more medicaid, no more SCHIP...

Everyone enrolled in those programs are just going to shrug and go find some work, or move in with their kids or parents?

No protesting, no violence, no political backlash?

So, a round of checks for everybody is your answer? THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS IF WE DON'T THIS. Sometimes the money just runs out.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, a round of checks for everybody is your answer? THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS IF WE DON'T THIS. Sometimes the money just runs out.

Sometimes the money does run out.

However, we are not to that point, yet.

There is still time to let people down slowly instead of just dropping them on their head.

What is wrong with grandfathering in current enrollees and ending new enrollment? Is that not a more permanent and lasting solution that everyone could agree upon?

Your assertion that we simply stop funding mandatory spending programs is as much grounded in realism as the unicorns and pixie dust you referenced earlier. Even if you left people with 50% of their current benefits, no one would stand for it. Republican and Democrat alike.

 

[CarmelHP]

]Sometimes the money does run out.

However, we are not to that point, yet.

Says you, of course, you like to deal in bare conclusions.

There is still time to let people down slowly instead of just dropping them on their head.

What is wrong with grandfathering in current enrollees and ending new enrollment? Is that not a more permanent and lasting solution that everyone could agree upon?

And how do you do that? Why shouldn't those who could care for themselves if made to be winnowed out? If everything is all about compromise to you them how do you keep voters from voting themselves money?

Your assertion that we simply stop funding mandatory spending programs is as much grounded in realism as the unicorns and pixie dust you referenced earlier. Even if you left people with 50% of their current benefits, no one would stand for it. Republican and Democrat alike.

Then I guess we're just going to have to let it crash. We're quickly entering the death spiral, if no one will stand for a reduction then they won't stand for a freeze either. Keep up that Nanny state.

 

[Prometheus]

What's wrong? I'm trying to figure out how someone with that much hypocrisy in his post can stand on his pedestal and lob such insulting tirades against the same people he will need to stand with him to achieve the goals he wants to achieve.

You claim you want an end to wealth redistribution in your first statement but then focus solely on the spending totals without regard to where it's being spent in the second. By your argument, you have just said you don't care how the money is spent as long as the total does exceed X. Just as long as we reduce it back to 1990s levels. And what if to do that the only thing they saved were the wealth redistribution programs.

I've made numerous posts covering where we should make cuts. The answer is across the board.

I'll repeat it again - NO COW IS SACRED. When it comes to salvaging the nation, nothing is off the table.

Dramatically reducing entitlements with the end goal of eliminating them. You can't cut off SS over night (for example) but you can prevent anyone else from joining the ponzi scheme and allowing younger folks to opt out. Eventually, by attrition, the program ceases to exist. Savings from cutting other programs can fund SS in the transition.

Ending our world police actions and military adventurism. By closing most overseas bases and bringing these military personal back home, we will save lives and money. In addition, with the savings we can INCREASE spending on things/projects that actually do secure and defend America.

Ending ALL foreign monetary aid to other countries. In the short term, the free food shipments are continued to nations in need, with a goal of getting out of the worlds soup kitchen... possible solutions may include cost reimbursements down the road.

Eliminating many federal agencies. The dept of education is one of the first on the chopping block. 1960 we were far and away #1 in the world for education. Today we aren't even in the top 20. It has failed miserably. Destroy it.

It's time to get very serious. The 1990's level of spending is simply an easy goal post even those with the simplest of minds should be able to understand. America was fine 20 years ago by spending less, heck we were much stronger than we are today. The point is, the sky won't be falling, contrary to the chicken littles saying otherwise if deep cuts are made.