Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Rant

Here's a "plan" that The Donald advocates

Mar 22, 2016 6:20AM PDT

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
(NT) have to cut spending too
Mar 22, 2016 8:11AM PDT
- Collapse -
RE: have to cut spending too
Mar 22, 2016 12:55PM PDT
Where Republicans Went Wrong in Kansas

Aligned with conservatives in the Senate, Brownback steadfastly refused to consider a direct reversal of the original tax plan, insisting that the state continue on its path toward replacing the income tax entirely with consumption taxes.

“The governor needs to learn, and I think a lot of the people in the legislature needs to learn, when you cut taxes in the manner that they have, you need to also cut spending."

That, of course, is easier said than done. As politically unpopular as any kind of tax increase is, cutting money from healthcare, schools, or retirement funds would spark an even bigger backlash. In that respect, the outcome in Kansas recalls the complaints of conservatives during the George W. Bush administration, when taxes went down but the government—and the deficit—grew.



Donald Trump’s proposals require implausible spending cuts or 10% growth

Mr Trump says he will save $300 billion from Medicare (the government health-care scheme for the elderly) by buying drugs more cheaply. Alas, total Medicare spending on drugs is likely to average $111 billion annually over the next decade. Aggregate American spending on drugs (public and private) is around $300 billion a year, says the CRFB. Perhaps Mr Trump thinks he can persuade the pharmaceutical companies to give their product away: the “art of the deal” in action.

Don't get me started on the price of "the Wall" and who will pay for it and WHEN.

Donald Ducks?
- Collapse -
That's easy
Mar 30, 2016 3:56PM PDT

Round up all the illegals and sell off anything here they own since it's all "ill gotten gains" due to them being here illegally. That's a good start. Criminals should not be allowed to profit from their criminality.

- Collapse -
The problem with that is that most illegals
Apr 3, 2016 3:18PM PDT

are day workers and don't own much of anything.

Besides our beloved Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals.

- Collapse -
As a deal made with Dems to
Apr 4, 2016 1:48AM PDT

cut spending and build the wall/get better border security......and they lied as usual to get what they wanted.

- Collapse -
Notice the wording.
Apr 4, 2016 7:24AM PDT
"Mr Trump says he will save $300 billion from Medicare (the government health-care scheme for the elderly) by buying drugs more cheaply. Alas, total Medicare spending on drugs is likely to average $111 billion annually over the next decade."

Medicare totally cost more than just the cost of drugs. Cutting drugs won't lower it 300 billion dollars, but it's a place to start. The rest of savings will be cuts in other areas.
- Collapse -
That's why Reagan had to raise taxes so many times
Apr 3, 2016 3:19PM PDT

He originally cut taxes but Congress wouldn't let him cut spending.

- Collapse -
Exactly what I said....Dems controlled Congress
Apr 4, 2016 1:49AM PDT

for his first four years and they lied repeatedly to get what they wanted.....the spending cuts came with Republican/Gingrich controlled Congress in the next four years.

- Collapse -
(NT) Then why did the debt triple?
Apr 4, 2016 9:36AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) because Obama is in office now
Apr 4, 2016 8:10PM PDT
- Collapse -
Government tax and spend efficiency
Mar 22, 2016 11:16AM PDT

Didn't we just hear complaints about fraud in the WWP? Take a look at this


“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 1Cool cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

So shall we think our government is better at deciding how to spend what citizens earn or do the citizens do it better? The answer is obvious to me.

- Collapse -
solution
Mar 29, 2016 3:46AM PDT

for that 70 percent? how can we keep those in check who are illegally taking the govt and poor people's money?

- Collapse -
Actually it's pretty simple
Mar 30, 2016 8:37AM PDT

take many of the Federal programs and send them back to the States to manage and control on a much smaller scale of populous. Some of those programs can actually be completely eliminated that way since so many of them are overlapping and repetitive/duplicates. Yes, we will also be eliminating Federal employees and making government smaller but the deficit will also be reduced, while Governors and local governments will be able to control their own spending by catching fraud much faster....sometimes even to the point of being able to recover those funds easier. If the IRS on a Federal level can't or won't go after actual tax cheats or outright scofflaws who don't pay taxes they owe to the IRS, what makes politicians believe their accounting systems are success stories? When you fail at something repeatedly, somewhere along the line common sense dictates that you do the job differently.

- Collapse -
we need to give border states
Mar 31, 2016 8:30AM PDT

border powers also. That way when the govt fails to protect the borders, the states can up their efforts to do so. We also need to block the federal govt from interfering in that.

- Collapse -
Costs and recovery for fraud would be much lower
Apr 4, 2016 1:57AM PDT

if States controlled the funding instead of the Feds.....like with all taxes collected by the States, the money goes to the Feds, who then decide how much each State should be given back and it's never proportionally correct with much of the money paid in 'high tax' States like New Jersey going to larger States like California in order to keep supporting the illegals when they are in larger numbers because of the lax rules about them. If California had to support them all by themselves, the map would be largely different from what it is now, including places like Illinois where they were publicly invited to come by Rahm.

- Collapse -
Actually it's mostly the southern states
Apr 4, 2016 9:38AM PDT

that get more from DC than they send.

- Collapse -
not quite
Apr 4, 2016 8:26PM PDT
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

5 of the top 10 are southern.
8 of the top 20 are southern
11 of the top 20 are west of the Mississipi
7 of the top 25 are Northern Yankee states

If you line it up by each state's residents who are dependent on federal govt funds in their personal lives, then 4 out of the top 10 are southern. Part of that is due to the larger "ethnic" groups, illegal immigrants, in the South.