I certainly support cutting the military budget and not social programs... however in this instance I think across the board cuts would have broad bipartisan support :)

Or at least everyone would hate it equally.  

How come we can't have some guy figure out what the Order of Battle would be for a US Military that would decimate any other force on the face of the earth, twice? Then reduce to that amount.

Technically, we did this back in 2001. We had to build up a bit to get there after the 90s.

Shit, cut military spending to a sane level and we'd be most of the way there without dicking over the poor.

Or we could just do what Obama wants and cut everything except the military, aka basically what McCain wanted to do.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Depending on how it works out, that proposal doesn't look too bad (although I think some cuts to the military would still be a good idea).  It's a question of what's politically expedient, I suspect.  Democrats don't seem to care, and this way Republicans can't hammer him for being anti-troop.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

If we cut military spending completely we'd still have a deficit of three-quarters of a trillion dollars. That's how fucked we are.

You're more in a bigger mess than we are. But in either case I think some nice across the board cuts would solve the problem.  In Canada we need to slash spending by about $1600 per person and in the states deep cuts of $4000 per person would stop the bleeding.  If we all just cancel our 2-3 week vacation for one year and send the savings to the government, that would pretty much do it.  

I expect to see some Republican attempts to begin to fix things by proposing that the unspent "stimulus" spending be cancelled as well as some other domestic spending that has been allocated but not yet spent. if it gains any traction in the press I expect the Democrat's response to be along the lines of "those heartless Republicans are stealing food from starving babies!"

if it gains any traction in the press I expect the Democrat's response to be along the lines of "those heartless Republicans are stealing food from starving babies!"

Maybe. Then again, that may not do much good unless "stealing food from starving babies" starts rating higher on the public importance list. Right now, starving babies is Job #9.

1996.

It was SS sleight of hand then:  count SS as revenues, not future liabilities, and the US still only had 2-3 years of nominal "surplus" during peak baby boomer SS contribution years, the beginning of a housing bubble, and the dotcom bubble.  However, it was certainly better than the current situation.  I would maintain that it wasn't the republican congress or the democratic white house that should get credit, rather the adversarial nature between the two.  That's what worries me about one party rule, or bipartisanship:  the more government can get done without opposition, the worst off we are.