Summit Treestands
Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Shuteye 02-Dec-15
slade 02-Dec-15
Jim in Ohio 02-Dec-15
Hunting5555 02-Dec-15
Lucas 02-Dec-15
Anony Mouse 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
Anony Mouse 02-Dec-15
sundowner 02-Dec-15
Anony Mouse 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
SunnyInCO 02-Dec-15
sundowner 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
HA/KS 02-Dec-15
sundowner 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
sundowner 02-Dec-15
Anony Mouse 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
sundowner 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
Anony Mouse 02-Dec-15
sundowner 02-Dec-15
K Cummings 02-Dec-15
TD 03-Dec-15
K Cummings 03-Dec-15
Spike Bull 03-Dec-15
K Cummings 03-Dec-15
Jim in Ohio 03-Dec-15
K Cummings 03-Dec-15
Anony Mouse 03-Dec-15
Jim in Ohio 03-Dec-15
From: Shuteye
02-Dec-15

Absolutely Jaw Dropping !!

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

A List of Republican Budget Cuts

Notice S.S. And the military are NOT on this list.

These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.

Read to the end.

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings. * Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings. * International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings. * Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings. * National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings. * National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings. * Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings. * Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings. * Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually. * U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings. * Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings. * Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings. * John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings. * Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings. * Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings. * Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings * Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings. * Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings. * Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings. *Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.. * Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings. * Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings. * New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.

* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings * Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings. * Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings. * Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings. * Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings. * Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings. * Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings. * Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.. * Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings. *Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually. * U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings. * General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings. * Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings. *Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years. * No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings. * End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. * Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually. * IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years. *Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT? * Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years. * Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings. *Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT??? * Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings. *Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL

* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings. * USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings. * Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings. * Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings. *Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings. * Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings.. * HUD Ph.D. Program. * Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act. *TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!

Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan.

From: slade
02-Dec-15
He is cutting their budgets to make room for his and the rest of the GOP big spender programs.

From: Jim in Ohio
02-Dec-15
I don't think I saw anything on cutting the EPA.

From: Hunting5555
02-Dec-15
Looks like a good START!!

From: Lucas
02-Dec-15
Sounds like a great start if they don't spend it somewhere else.

From: Anony Mouse
02-Dec-15
Now...or effective in 10 years?

Real cuts...or reductions in increase?

Proposed...voted on and then cave in fear of Obama veto shutdown?

As of now, they are just words from a newly elected speaker who has seemed to be wearing Boehner's galoshes.

I think I'll wait before any cheering. Regan's "trust but verify" applies when it comes to the GoP.

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
I can't "conclusively" say this, but I'm becoming more and more convinced every day that a number of posters on this site just want to bitch about whoever is in power and whatever they are or aren't doing. Nothing will ever be good enough. They are just miserable malcontents.

KPC

From: Anony Mouse
02-Dec-15
2012

2014

From: sundowner
02-Dec-15
Hear that, Jack?

You and I and a few others on the CF, who with very good reasons clearly stated here many times, do not trust the GoP, and we are "miserable malcontents"! "Nothing will ever be good enough."

KPC you have just insulted a pretty large group. I guess that was your intent.

From: Anony Mouse
02-Dec-15
2012

2014

Mike Bishop (avowed/advertised conservative), R(MI)--F (40% Conservative Review)

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
"KPC you have just insulted a pretty large group. I guess that was your intent."

Just a few perpetual victims is all.

KPC

From: SunnyInCO
02-Dec-15
Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings

Well there goes the public hunting out west.

From: sundowner
02-Dec-15
KPC: "Just a few perpetual victims is all."

Yeah, I would have to agree with that.

The establishment Republican Party has created a very large number of victims....victims of it's failure to simply do what it advertised that it would do. Victims of believing it's lies, of trusting an R candidate not to look you in the eye and outright lie.

When you put it that way, the eGoP has a history of creating millions of victims. That number is most likely shrinking, however.

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
I agree Sundowner. Maybe we should demand a designated "safe zone" here on the CF where people can discuss things without having their feelings hurt and being insulted by snarky comments and such.

"eGOP" lives matter you know.

KPC

From: HA/KS
02-Dec-15
"Well there goes the public hunting out west."

As I have stated, a lot of people claim to be in favor of less government - until it is THEIR teat that dries up.

From: sundowner
02-Dec-15
Great idea KPC. Establishment R's are known to have tender feelings. Feel free to segregate to your own little "I'm OK, you're OK" conversations.

We nasty old mistrusting Conservatives promise not to interfere. Should be easy.....after all you've insulted most of us as "miserable malcontents". Perhaps we may learn who else shares your ugly opinion of fellow CF posters.

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
"Great idea KPC. Establishment R's are known to have tender feelings..."

I don't think so Sundowner. I don't see any of the supposed "eGOPers" and "smuGOPolosits" whining about being done wrong by anyone. The only one I see complaining about snarky comments and being insulted is....

drumroll please...

YOU.

KPC

From: sundowner
02-Dec-15
So, who will courageously step up and admit that they agree with Kevin C. that Jack (Anony Mouse) B. and others are "miserable malcontents" because they recognize the fact that they have been lied to numerous times by the Republican party? And that they will no longer trust the GoP without verification.

...... Anyone?

From: Anony Mouse
02-Dec-15
I'm not a malcontent...and I am far from miserable.

I do know the difference between a promise and a lie. The lie is to promise one thing and either do nothing or make little effort to fulfil that promise.

2012

2014

Mike Bishop

Heck, I'd even change my opinion about Mike Bishop if he would admit that he has no intention of being a conservative, but a reliable Boehner-like eGoP representative. I'd probably be more supportive of the Republican Party if it would admit that it does not really support conservative/Constitutional ideas.

Truth in packaging.

Anyone remember those skits on MAD TV (?)entitled: Lower Expectations? Like it or not, I will probably continue to vote for the "lesser of two weasels" when it comes to the Presidential election in 2016 to (hopefully) prevent a Hillary win. But state on down, I will vote for third party or people like Justin Amash (Oh, how I wish he were my Representative.)

In the real world, we have only seen action against the proregressives at state and local levels. The GoP Congress has shown it supports much of the Obama agenda and either cannot or will not use its Constitutionally defined powers to deal with the Imperial President.

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
Sundowner:

Would you kindly point out where I said Jack was a miserable malcontent?

Thanks,

KPC

From: sundowner
02-Dec-15
Anyone with average intelligence and reading comprehension can read your posts and the proximity of your insulting description relative to Jack's post, and can draw their own conclusions.

But your insult fell immediately behind his comment regarding Reagan's "trust but verify", so if it was not directed at Jack, who exactly did you intend to insult? It was directed at "a number of posters"..... Would you have the integrity to say who those posters are, and is Jack not among that number?

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
Actually Sundowner, anyone with any level of reading comprehension, or anyone that has been here for any length of time (including and especially Jack) would know that almost without fail, if I am referring to someone specifically, I will either quote them, or refer to them by name.

The fact that my post followed Jacks post means nothing other than the order in which each response was started. That's the way it works. One post following another could mean that they were started (not posted) within seconds, hours, days, or weeks of each other. The post that was started first will show first, regardless of when the submit button is clicked.

Sometimes, when I post something that does not reference or quote someone in particular, it is simply generic in nature. It might even be a culmination of a number of threads, which was the case this time (as is plainly evidenced by the word "conclusively" that I chose to place in quotations, which was from another thread all together).

So yes, I do have the integrity to say who the posters are. In this case, it is, and was directed to anyone who chooses to identify with what I posted. Apparently, that would include you, otherwise you wouldn't be so insulted.

Interestingly enough, you weren't even part of the conversation prior to me posting what I did, even so you voluntarily owned it...after I posted it.

"You and I and a few others on the CF, who with very good reasons clearly stated here many times, do not trust the GoP, and we are "miserable malcontents"! "Nothing will ever be good enough."

By you choosing to do that, we can only surmise that you identify with my remarks. Otherwise why would you voluntarily identify with a post in a conversation that you hadn't yet participated in?

KPC

From: Anony Mouse
02-Dec-15

Anony Mouse's Link
When was the last time that the government operated under a real budget instead of a continuing resolution.

Wasteful spending is and has been kit and kindle of our government no matter which party has held the reins.

From: sundowner
02-Dec-15
KPC, so you have been called out and you are copping out? You sling out words about others and immediately deny who the obvious recipient was?

You infer that you intended to insult me, which is fine, but you referred to "posters", in the plural. Perhaps you could muster the courage and inform the good folks here exactly who the other poster(s) are that you intended to include as " miserable malcontents who just want to bitch about whoever is in power and whatever they are not doing."

Don't be afraid..,.you're safe behind your keyboard.

And BTW, thanks Jack for ignoring this crap. You are an honorable man, Sir.

And as WW said, you have the last word Kevin.

From: K Cummings
02-Dec-15
"KPC, so you have been called out and you are copping out? You sling out words about others and immediately deny who the obvious recipient was?"

Did you even read my last post Sundowner? It was exceedingly specific.

The fact that you don't like my answer, or the fact that my answer actually embarrasses you, doesn't make it any less truthful. It just makes it a truthful answer that exposes your tendency to shoot before you aim.

Afraid of speaking my mind? Surely you jest.

KPC

From: TD
03-Dec-15
Where exactly would you folks start?

You do know there are procedures to get things done? They aren't done by fiat?

KPC has a point. Folks whizz and moan they aren't doing anything (I mean, it's been WEEKS you know....) And when there IS a first step being taken..... nothing but more whizzing and moaning...

Exactly what do you think the first steps to turning things around look like? There are rules. But some seem to want their own Obama to take over with no rules. As long as he's their guy breaking them....all is good...

You can say "we'll see, they have made promises before..." but you CAN'T whizz and moan that the actual first steps are being taken. Hopefully they can put the votes together. Skepticism is one thing. But positive steps taken, no matter how you think they will turn out, should not be greeted with slaps to the face and insults. It ALL has to start with these steps, like it or not. Like THEM or not.

Is there some fear that Ryan may prove some wrong in their harsh assessments? You WANT another Boner because you've told everyone you knew he was just another Boner? "I told you so" becomes a driving force rather than a "hey, maybe he's not as bad as I said he was...." I don't get it sometimes.....

If this gets shot down.... then the folks that shot it down need to be singled out and replaced.... only way is by elections. Single those individuals out for the vitriol and replace them with someone who will get what you want done. Everything else is whizzing and moaning and blaming the folks making an effort for not "trying hard enough..."

From: K Cummings
03-Dec-15
Thank you TD, you understood what I was referring to.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."

-Lao Tzu

KPC

03-Dec-15
Let us see,

slade was cynical

Jim was neutral

5555 was cynical

Lucas was mildly cynical

and then, Anony was definitively cynical,

The next post is you, KPC, chastising those who had spoken out against this latest Ryan effort.

Seems "conclusive" to me! You meant those guys because they are the only ones who had expressed being not content with that effort up to that point!

Come on, KPC, I know you like Anony, for good reasons that many share, but you should own up!

From: K Cummings
03-Dec-15
"Come on, KPC, I know you like Anony, for good reasons that many share, but you should own up!"

I understand it sometimes takes a few repetitions for something to sink in, so I'll post it again. I will highlight the important parts just for you Spike.*

please note: I have not only quoted you, but I reverenced you directly by name. This will come in handy later. *

__________________________________________________________________________

"Actually Sundowner, anyone with any level of reading comprehension, or anyone that has been here for any length of time (including and especially Jack) would know that almost without fail, if I am referring to someone specifically, I will either quote them, or refer to them by name. The fact that my post followed Jacks post means nothing other than the order in which each response was started. That's the way it works. One post following another could mean that they were started (not posted) within seconds, hours, days, or weeks of each other. The post that was started first will show first, regardless of when the submit button is clicked.

Sometimes, when I post something that does not reference or quote someone in particular, it is simply generic in nature. It might even be a culmination of a number of threads, which was the case this time (as is plainly evidenced by the word "conclusively" that I chose to place in quotations, which was from another thread all together).

So yes, I do have the integrity to say who the posters are. In this case, it is, and was directed to anyone who chooses to identify with what I posted. Apparently, that would include you, otherwise you wouldn't be so insulted."

__________________________________________________________________________

Certainly you should understand that if I'm not quoting someone or referencing them by name, there is a very good chance that I am not posting about anyone in particular. After all, you and I have danced this very dance before.

Now, if for some reason you are still having trouble comprehending this, please let me know. Maybe if I sent a voice text it would be easier for you to understand. *

KPC

* Disclosure: While this post is very factual in nature, some of the points contained herein are intentionally cloaked in humor. In no way should this be construed as an attempt to insult or bully.

From: Jim in Ohio
03-Dec-15
It is well known the Ryan supports illegal immigration and amnesty. Then in his lists of government spending cuts, he doesn't even mention the EPA

Well those two things are at the top of my list and I will only vote for the political candidate who is the toughest on these two issues. Whether it be for Congressman, Senator, or President.

From: K Cummings
03-Dec-15
So Jim, if Ryan doesn't mention everything that you would like to see cut, does that make all the rest of his proposed cuts worthless and irrelevant?

Are we supposed to wait until everything can be cut before we make any cuts at all?

KPC

From: Anony Mouse
03-Dec-15
I hate to ever refer to Snopes, but in this case it has the best summary of Lex's initial post.

This thread is a big hoo-hoo about nuthin'.

I would like to edit my initial post:

Now...or effective in 10 years?

Real cuts...or reductions in increase?

Proposed...voted on and then cave in fear of Obama veto shutdown?

As of now, they are just words from attributed a newly elected speaker who has seemed to be wearing Boehner's galoshes.

I think I'll wait before any cheering. Regan's "trust but verify" applies when it comes to the GoP.

From Snopes:

Summary: This itemized list of proposed budget cuts is real in the sense that it was encapsulated in a bill (H.R. 408) known as the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, a plan to reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion through fiscal year 2021, and the specific amounts of savings to be gleaned by eliminating each item on the list come from a Republican Spending Committee report of January 2011. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 was introduced to the House of Representatives in January 2011 and referred to committee, where it has remained ever since; it has not been passed or ever put to a vote.

The current identification of this list as "Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts" is inaccurate, however, as it was not proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee. The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, not Paul Ryan, and Ryan was not among the bill's 32 co-sponsors. (Rep. Ryan, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has proposed a different budget plan ("The Path to Prosperity") for fiscal year 2013, which seeks to balance the federal budget by the year 2040.)

The estimate that "requiring collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees" would produce $1 billion in total savings has raised some eyebrows, but according to the Washington Post, records provided by the Internal Revenue showed that "about 98,000 federal, postal and congressional employees owed $1.03 billion in unpaid taxes at the end of fiscal 2010." In February 2011, Rep Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a bill, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 828), which would "provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment." That bill was passed by the House but has not been voted upon by the Senate.

One of the few items on this list of proposed budget cuts which is not accompanied by a specific amount of expected dollar savings is the "Death gratuity for Members of Congress," which in the Internet-circulated version of this list bears the legend "Untold savings could result from this," suggesting that this item is a comparatively large one. In fact, it has been the traditional practice of Congress that when a member dies in office, an appropriation is made to provide the deceased member's spouse, children, or other next-of-kin with a one-time payment equal in amount to the member's annual salary. Since the current salary for members of Congress is $174,000 per year, and Congress averages about two deaths per year (84 members of Congress have died in office since 1973), the expected savings from the elimination of this tradition would be a bit less than $350,000 per year. (More recently, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida has sponsored a bill specifically seeking to "prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving heirs of deceased Members of Congress," but that bill has also failed to clear its committee assignment.)

Last updated: 12 October 2012

Thus, we have another "smoke and mirrors" promise from the Republicans in Congress. No kudos to Ryan or the Republican party. Even if passed, without any real cuts seen into the distant future, it allows Congress to just continue to spend as those proposed future cuts in spending can be erased down the road.

IMHO, there is no "cut" unless it actually takes place...not proposed to occur in the rainbow-unicorn future of fiscal responsibility.

From: Jim in Ohio
03-Dec-15

Jim in Ohio's Link
More on Ryan spending cuts.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ryan-says-u-spending-agreement-162528821.html

  • Sitka Gear