So; what's the difference? How would Reps cut spending as opposed to the Dems?

[ironglow]

  SSome folks say, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".  Not always true though..
    The Democrats have their program in position and we know where their efforts to cut..have come down..(especially heavy on  Social Security (through Medicare loss of value & higher rates)... and the military..where the big axe comes down.
     Republican must make sizeable cuts to match or surpass the Democrats.
     Here are the cuts ordered by the new Republican congress.  Note, no cuts to SS or the military:
 http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/28675-proposed-republican-budget-cuts.html
  ..I  think I like the Republican plan the best..cut the fat and leave the muscle..
   

[Gary G]

Neither party will cut spending. They only propose to reduce the acceleration in the growth of spending in certain areas. Look at who they get their money from and that is what they will not reduce. You have the best government big corporate money can buy.


Guess who the losers are?

[ironglow]

The Reps have already proposed this..if we can hold their feet to the fire and retain just half these cuts listed, we will be far ahead of where we are now.  It's been 4 years since we have had a federal budget, but still the schemers found a sneaky way (Simpson-Bowles) to cut the military to pre WW1 & WW2 levels......seems like this budget would be a vast improvement.
   
   Most of the things listed to be cut in the foregoing document, are of no worthwhile use..they should be eliminated..

[twoshooter]

There are no massive armies waiting to attack us anymore, the military as it is structured is a joke, just another rathole to pour money and manpower into. The army of the future will be fighting with information, not tanks and battleships. In fact the military of the future will hold more danger for us, the ordinary citizen, that any foreign government will. The deployment of surveillance equipment, drones and data mining will within 25 years make any privacy period an obsolete concept, if it has not done so already. Keeping the military as it has been would be like ordering a new Escalade Hybrid with an 8 track tape player. The only justification now is that so many people work in the defense industry, and so many are getting rich off it that it is difficult if not impossible to get it stopped. Eisenhower was exactly right. Unless you can prove an alien invasion is imminent, the DOD needs to take a big hit.

We have so little manufacturing capability and trained workforce  due to our wonderful "free market" crap that if something did come up in a hurry we would be toast. People you fight with do not continue to supply you with weapons to fight them with(unless it is us).

[ironglow]

  Defense size and structure we can debate, but we must not lower our strength or vigilance.  "Defense" can be characterized as protection from attacks from other powers, space, cyber warfare, domestic attacks by foreign theocracies (ala 9/11), strategic assinations.. to a China who has a 200,000,000 man army and is building super carriers while we speak.
   In any case..one of the few mandatory charges to the federal government by our CONSTITUTION is to "provide for the common defense"....   I see no provisions in the constitution which call for providing the following extravagances:
 
 A) The National Endowment for the Arts..
 
 B) The  Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
 
 C) National endowment for the Humanities
 
 D) Taxpayer funding of public union activities.
 
 E) Covering just the administrative costs for Obamacare ($900,000,000)
 
 F) Maintaining forever, the "mohair subsidy".
 
     We all should realize by now, that we cannot get it all at once... so let's start with this list of totally useless expenditures..remove them..and then start paring on the essentials..