Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure what you are asking me to concede. Where else would the pork reside than in non-military discretionary spending?
|
We don't disagree with each that the federal government spends money on pork, although I tend to think that there's a lot of pork in the military budget, too. The disagreement is whether you can save in the neighborhood of $420 billion by trimming pork. My point is that you can't -- once you start cutting enough to close the deficits Bush has given us, you are well beyond cutting what most people would call pork, and well into cutting things that most people -- though not Penske -- agree that government should be doing. Like protecting the environmental and maintaining national parks, etc. (If you call that "pork," fine, but you are using words in a weird way to mask that your views are far from the mainstream.)
Quote:
|
Reform in the manner in which administration of benefits is currently done would result in a significant amount of savings without any pain. Milton Friedman has written volumes on the subject.
|
What is a "significant amount"? And no pain? You have a GOP Congress and a GOP White House that would be happy to cut taxes even more, so why haven't they done it yet?
eta: What Burger said, too.
