The real reason for the gaslighting

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, wnyguy said:

He never said it was 25% anywhere. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You sir, are a charlatan.

That was my point.  Cutting the DOE doesn't get you anywhere near 25%.  That is the only spending he mentioned cutting.  All I'm asking is for him to come up with a plan to cut 25%.

[Orlando Buffalo]

6 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Take your attitude and shove it.

 

You want to cut spending by 25%,  then tell us how you would do it.  It is that simple.  It is easy to make statements like cut by 25%.  It is harder to actually make that happen.  Hint , you aren't going to get there without serious cuts to defense, social security, medicare and medicaid.

 

1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Once again whom insinuated it was 25%? Tibs stated it only cost 10 million when it is closer to 20 billion but I said it was a start. I am a large proponent of taking away the people in the Federal government whom do the oversight and allowing the states to distribute their funding as they see fit. States can choose how to distribute Medicare funds, Education, housing and food stamp payments better than DC in almost all conditions. DOE, HUD, Interior and State can be shrunk down to a small portion of their size, The only place the big spending should be controlled by the feds is the military, which I would love to see become more efficient but admit that is a back burner issue at this time. Most of the issues the federal government is involved within the states each state can handle itself. 

Got it, you are illiterate. My response to you a little while ago. 

[Scraps]

1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

 

Got it, you are illiterate. My response to you a little while ago. 

That "little while ago" was  AFTER I pointed out that you can't get there simply but cutting the Department of Education.

[wnyguy]

5 minutes ago, Scraps said:

That was my point.  Cutting the DOE doesn't get you anywhere near 25%.  That is the only spending he mentioned cutting.  All I'm asking is for him to come up with a plan to cut 25%.

No no you said he claimed that cutting DOE would be 25%, a claim he never made. Remember that?

[Orlando Buffalo]

3 minutes ago, Scraps said:

That "little while ago" was  AFTER I pointed out that you can't get there simply but cutting the Department of Education.

I understand now- you wanted me to answer your question before you asked it. I understand you as a liberal believe that conservatives are smarter than you but even I can't answer questions before they are asked all the time.

[Scraps]

7 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

No no you said he claimed that cutting DOE would be 25%, a claim he never made. Remember that?

No, I pointed out that cutting DOE would not be 25% of Federal spending.

 

If you think I said otherwise, prove it.

[Scraps]

6 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

I understand now- you wanted me to answer your question before you asked it. I understand you as a liberal believe that conservatives are smarter than you but even I can't answer questions before they are asked all the time.

Literally my very first sentence to you was asking that question.  Jeez, talk about illiterate.

[Orlando Buffalo]

27 minutes ago, Scraps said:

Literally my very first sentence to you was asking that question.  Jeez, talk about illiterate.

And literally my first response to you 

 

 

Once again whom insinuated it was 25%? Tibs stated it only cost 10 million when it is closer to 20 billion but I said it was a start. I am a large proponent of taking away the people in the Federal government whom do the oversight and allowing the states to distribute their funding as they see fit. States can choose how to distribute Medicare funds, Education, housing and food stamp payments better than DC in almost all conditions. DOE, HUD, Interior and State can be shrunk down to a small portion of their size, The only place the big spending should be controlled by the feds is the military, which I would love to see become more efficient but admit that is a back burner issue at this time. Most of the issues the federal government is involved within the states each state can handle itself. 

[Tiberius]

 

[Scraps]

 

6 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

And literally my first response to you 

 

 

Once again whom insinuated it was 25%? Tibs stated it only cost 10 million when it is closer to 20 billion but I said it was a start. I am a large proponent of taking away the people in the Federal government whom do the oversight and allowing the states to distribute their funding as they see fit. States can choose how to distribute Medicare funds, Education, housing and food stamp payments better than DC in almost all conditions. DOE, HUD, Interior and State can be shrunk down to a small portion of their size, The only place the big spending should be controlled by the feds is the military, which I would love to see become more efficient but admit that is a back burner issue at this time. Most of the issues the federal government is involved within the states each state can handle itself. 

So assuming all that is done, how much money does that save?  

[Orlando Buffalo]

4 minutes ago, Scraps said:

 

So assuming all that is done, how much money does that save?  

So acknowledgement that you were wrong? But to answer your second question 1 trillion the first year and grow the savings per year slowly. Thankfully when the interest rates drop we can start paying off the debt faster. 

[Andy1]

You can’t cut 25% in one year. If we started by cutting 5%-10% combined with minor tax increases/expiration of tax cuts/eligibility for benefits changes would be progress. We need to bend the debt curve on the graph to maintain faith in the American economic system.

[Orlando Buffalo]

2 hours ago, Andy1 said:

You can’t cut 25% in one year. If we started by cutting 5%-10% combined with minor tax increases/expiration of tax cuts/eligibility for benefits changes would be progress. We need to bend the debt curve on the graph to maintain faith in the American economic system.

We don't need tax increases or anything to help the government spend money. But we could cut a trillion, which is about 15%, without any pain outside of DC if we did it right.