NationStates Jolt Archive

There is much talk about taxes being too high, but little about SPENDING being out of control. Lets talk about that here. What programs do YOU think could be cut?

Be specific, not just 'defence' or 'eductaion' but instead "Elimiate the cost of spy satalites" or "Eliminate trade education from high school and make it college prep only".

I personally want to see ALL government programs take a 1/2% cut next year across the board. It would be good also to see education removed completely as a federal program and given to the states to provide. (With a commensurate reduction in federal tax and increase in state tax)

Any and all welfare programs need to be minimised, with the funding transfered to education. Welfare doesn't go as far as education in equalizing, and it is growing way too rapidly.

Corporate welfare needs to go--period, end of story. Subsidies and guaranteed loans to the airline industry need to go--the airline industry has been in trouble for thirty years now thanks to deregulation and stupid business plans and that's one industry where I'd like to see the tender mercies of the free market take over and wipe some companies out.

Corporate welfare needs to go--period, end of story. Subsidies and guaranteed loans to the airline industry need to go--the airline industry has been in trouble for thirty years now thanks to deregulation and stupid business plans and that's one industry where I'd like to see the tender mercies of the free market take over and wipe some companies out.

I so totally agree. End farm subsidies, end airline subsidies and most others as well. I think that after 9/11 the airlines DESERVE to tank for their shoddy performance with security.

Unfortunately, Tom Daschel decided to bail them out and then transfer the cost of security to the government.

It is ridiculous that it costs the same now to fly coast to coast as it did 10 years ago.

I'd like the government to get out of the loan subsidy business, although there's not a lot of savings there except for HUD and student loans. I'd like to see accelerated depriciation killed off. I'd like to see the government of France actually let some major French company compete with the world. I'd eliminate the NEA public funding, although maybe we can keep some staff for the administration of private monies. I'd like to see Canada charge reasonable stumpage fees and the US to drop it's (significantly lower) subsidy of timbering through road building, if timbering is competative they'll build their own roads and if it isn't competative then we can all buy illegal Brazilian mahoghany. I'd like to see Anti-Trust part of the DOJ dismantled, the laws reversed and all the judgments destroyed - it was the stupid AT ruling against IBM that gave us microsoft in the first place and all the anti-trust has become is a way for companies that cannot make it in the market to use the government to criple those companies which can make it. I could go on for hours.

Er... The Patriot Act in America... it's not a program...but still...

Everything.

Military spending and farm subsidies. More harm than good in both cases.

Of course where I live we dont have any farm subsidies and military spending is pretty insignificant so I am definately only talking about American government spending.

The first government project that can take a hit is the war on drugs. Cut it down til its just one guy with a dog on the Mexican border. That $30 billion saved right there.

Lose 99% of all funds to maintain nucleur missiles as active. Cut 100% of the money going into creating new ones. Put the money back into ET projects (thats Emerging Technology, the kinds of weapons that can perform their tasks without putting human lives at risk)

If you end farm subsidies, you'll lose rather a lot of jobs in the midwest, so that may not be the best idea. Similarly, opening airlines to full free-market forces is likely to reduce safety, not increase it (look at the rail system in the UK)

Put $127 billion dollars into education, cos thats the amount needed just to repair the school buildings that are falling down. Make college tuition tax deductible and pay for it by closing the loophole on deductions of insentive based bonuses for managers and executives and by reinstating the death tax at a 2 million dollar exemption.

Cut from missile defence and space technology.

Everything.

Yes, everything must be eliminated, except local and national defence.

Everything.

Yes, everything must be eliminated, except local and national defence.

Let me guess. You are republican, aren't you?

Cut the funding for Iraq and other stupid wars.

Everything.

Yes, everything must be eliminated, except local and national defence.

Let me guess. You are republican, aren't you?

No, I'm a Libertarian. A republican leader has never gone to such extremes, nor do they believe in more individual freedoms.

I say cut a bunch of those special interest groups from gov't spending . . . don't we send money over to they NRA?

Everything.

Yes, everything must be eliminated, except local and national defence.

Let me guess. You are republican, aren't you?

No, I'm a Libertarian. Has a republican leader ever gone to such extremes?

Hard to believe a libertarian would want to get rid of welfare and programs "for the people".

Hard to believe a libertarian would want to get rid of welfare and programs "for the people".

You don't know much about Libertarianism, do you?

Eliminate those overpriced mercs that our military uses.

Hard to believe a libertarian would want to get rid of welfare and programs "for the people".

You don't know much about Libertarianism, do you?

Not much. I may be mistaken. Enlighten me.

Ok, as an Australian (from that small, globally insignificant nation at the ass end of the world :wink: ) I am amazed that successive US governments have failed to balance the budget and pay off the trillions of dollars of debt that will come back to bite them some day.

Australia has a budget of $200 billion and over the past 8 years 70% of government debt has been paid off by running surplus budgets. GDP has doubled in the same period as well and continues to grow due to the securing of FTA's and other trade deals. We have Medicare (which covers the costs of visits to the doctor), a well financed education system (Australian public school students receive double each American public school student per capita) and we still have money left over to increase defence spending by $50 billion over the next 10 years.

...And before anyone says "oh but the Iraq war", Australia has sunk over $2 billion into operations and the taxpayer is going to wipe $600 million of Iraq wheat debts. Furthermore, for the past few years we have financed operations in our immediate region (most importantly East Timor where we stationed 5,000 troops).

So where is all the money going? What is America wasting its trillion dollar budgets on?

(although I believe welfare spending is always a good place for cuts. start by cutting incentive for people to remain unemployed. after 5 months, all unemployment benefits should be cut - no excuse as to why you cannot find a job in that time).

If you end farm subsidies, you'll lose rather a lot of jobs in the midwest, so that may not be the best idea. Similarly, opening airlines to full free-market forces is likely to reduce safety, not increase it (look at the rail system in the UK)

.

At the turn of the last century farming was the number one employment sector. Today it is government.

Hard to believe a libertarian would want to get rid of welfare and programs "for the people".

You don't know much about Libertarianism, do you?

Not much. I may be mistaken. Enlighten me.

The Libertarians believe that the only purpose of a government is to protect the rights of an individual.

(although I believe welfare spending is always a good place for cuts. start by cutting incentive for people to remain unemployed. after 5 months, all unemployment benefits should be cut - no excuse as to why you cannot find a job in that time).How about there not being any jobs?

If you end farm subsidies, you'll lose rather a lot of jobs in the midwest, so that may not be the best idea. Similarly, opening airlines to full free-market forces is likely to reduce safety, not increase it (look at the rail system in the UK)

.

At the turn of the last century farming was the number one employment sector. Today it is government.Its still the number one industry in the USA

The Libertarians believe that the only purpose of a government is to protect the rights of an individual.

Uh...Republicans believe in the supreme importance of the individual (and also to make money too)...so are Libertarians allied with Republicans?

They should...Democrats are for collectivism - commie-like nonsense.

(although I believe welfare spending is always a good place for cuts. start by cutting incentive for people to remain unemployed. after 5 months, all unemployment benefits should be cut - no excuse as to why you cannot find a job in that time).How about there not being any jobs?

Well there are jobs. In the month of April, 288,000 new jobs were created in the USA.

And in Australia, there are more jobs than people. Which is going to become a real problem in years to come. Sure it will mean higher wages, but then unions will become powerful and our economy will stagnate :?

But, there are always jobs...it is just many people (mostly white) are too proud of themselves to work some jobs because they perceive themselves 'above' manual labour.

(although I believe welfare spending is always a good place for cuts. start by cutting incentive for people to remain unemployed. after 5 months, all unemployment benefits should be cut - no excuse as to why you cannot find a job in that time).How about there not being any jobs?

Well there are jobs. In the month of April, 288,000 new jobs were created in the USA.

And in Australia, there are more jobs than people. Which is going to become a real problem in years to come. Sure it will mean higher wages, but then unions will become powerful and our economy will stagnate :?

But, there are always jobs...it is just many people (mostly white) are too proud of themselves to work some jobs because they perceive themselves 'above' manual labour.

(although I believe welfare spending is always a good place for cuts. start by cutting incentive for people to remain unemployed. after 5 months, all unemployment benefits should be cut - no excuse as to why you cannot find a job in that time).How about there not being any jobs?

Well there are jobs. In the month of April, 288,000 new jobs were created in the USA.

And in Australia, there are more jobs than people. Which is going to become a real problem in years to come. Sure it will mean higher wages, but then unions will become powerful and our economy will stagnate :?

But, there are always jobs...it is just many people (mostly white) are too proud of themselves to work some jobs because they perceive themselves 'above' manual labour.

(although I believe welfare spending is always a good place for cuts. start by cutting incentive for people to remain unemployed. after 5 months, all unemployment benefits should be cut - no excuse as to why you cannot find a job in that time).How about there not being any jobs?

Well there are jobs. In the month of April, 288,000 new jobs were created in the USA.

And in Australia, there are more jobs than people. Which is going to become a real problem in years to come. Sure it will mean higher wages, but then unions will become powerful and our economy will stagnate :?

But, there are always jobs...it is just many people (mostly white) are too proud of themselves to work some jobs because they perceive themselves 'above' manual labour.

The Libertarians believe that the only purpose of a government is to protect the rights of an individual.

Uh...Republicans believe in the supreme importance of the individual (and also to make money too)...so are Libertarians allied with Republicans?

They should...Democrats are for collectivism - commie-like nonsense.

No, since Republicans want to restrict social freedoms, such as abortion and drug use. Nor do I see them making major budget cut all across the board. There was a time when they were like the libertarians but that was a long time ago

Corporate welfare needs to go--period, end of story. Subsidies and guaranteed loans to the airline industry need to go--the airline industry has been in trouble for thirty years now thanks to deregulation and stupid business plans and that's one industry where I'd like to see the tender mercies of the free market take over and wipe some companies out.

I so totally agree. End farm subsidies, end airline subsidies and most others as well. I think that after 9/11 the airlines DESERVE to tank for their shoddy performance with security.

Unfortunately, Tom Daschel decided to bail them out and then transfer the cost of security to the government.

It is ridiculous that it costs the same now to fly coast to coast as it did 10 years ago.Daschle? What the hell planet are you from? Need I remind you that all spending bills begin in the House of Representatives? Talk to your boys Hastert and DeLay for that load of legislation.

bump

What to cut? That's easy. I'd cut:
-Education. Reduce the federal government's footprint there, and hand much over to the states. However, I'd think it'd be cheaper to offer vouchers to children in failing schools.
-Healthcare, across the board. The government can do it easily with tort reform, and a little tweaking for HMOs.
-Social Security, and this I'm passionate about. While it's the largest part of the federal budget, the elderly are the last group that needs it. 70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.
-Certain subsidies, mostly to soy farmers and ranchers. They're not as important, but on the contrary, I see them as economically wasteful.
-The National Endowment of the Arts, as art doesn't need government money to flourish. A better idea would be to appoint something like a poet laureate, only in each field of art, music, and literature. This will promote art output and creativity more than our taxdollars.
-Urban housing programs. I propose that the government has a partial stake in each former project, with the vast majority going to another investor. This will keep rents at a reasonable rate, save the government money, and hopefully, give these apartment blocks improvements. I've heard horror stories of government neglect. Like a water heater in one apartment complex's basement, which was improperly installed in 1982.

If you end farm subsidies, you'll lose rather a lot of jobs in the midwest, so that may not be the best idea.
Most of those farms are operated by large agrifirms and most of the jobs are sub minimum wage. The subsedies destroy the livelihoods of small farmers in countries that cannot afford subsedies. Think 'Cancun.'

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.

income tax is illegal,unconstitutional immoral and theft its ridiculouse to tax productivity.

You can help the poor by getting rid of sales tax so they can better afford the things they need, like food and by not taking what money they do make.

Churches can certainly help and non profits and individuals and it would be done far better than it is now by government.

Government owns the most land (30% of the nation) and is the biggest employer yep. Sad.

Eliminate subsidies. Regulation of tv net etc. of most business etc. and well as much as possible all we truly need is defense tons can be cut.

taxation is slavery,theft!

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

So you want the elderly to work until they drop dead on the cold, hard floor. My my, how selfish of you.

income tax is illegal,unconstitutional immoral and theft its ridiculouse to tax productivity.

You can help the poor by getting rid of sales tax so they can better afford the things they need, like food and by not taking what money they do make.

Churches can certainly help and non profits and individuals and it would be done far better than it is now by government.

Government owns the most land (30% of the nation) and is the biggest employer yep. Sad.

Eliminate subsidies. Regulation of tv net etc. of most business etc. and well as much as possible all we truly need is defense tons can be cut.

taxation is slavery,theft!You really have no concept of how the world works, do you?

income tax is illegal,unconstitutional immoral and theft its ridiculouse to tax productivity.

You can help the poor by getting rid of sales tax so they can better afford the things they need, like food and by not taking what money they do make.

Churches can certainly help and non profits and individuals and it would be done far better than it is now by government.

Government owns the most land (30% of the nation) and is the biggest employer yep. Sad.

Eliminate subsidies. Regulation of tv net etc. of most business etc. and well as much as possible all we truly need is defense tons can be cut.

taxation is slavery,theft!

Anarchist aye. Imagine America without a government. I am sure the Middle East would love that. It would be interesting to see Josh Dollins standing on a NY pier trying to ward off enemy ships or on the border of Mexico warning a million Sth Americans off with a pistol. :lol:

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

So you want the elderly to work until they drop dead on the cold, hard floor. My my, how selfish of you.
Nope. I just want them independent of the government. And that can happen easier without social security. There are plenty of liquid assets that the elderly have, as they love investing in cash, gold, and foreign currencies. Many of them also have financial advisors.

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

So you want the elderly to work until they drop dead on the cold, hard floor. My my, how selfish of you.
Nope. I just want them independent of the government. And that can happen easier without social security. There are plenty of liquid assets that the elderly have, as they love investing in cash, gold, and foreign currencies. Many of them also have financial advisors.

Well then I am sure since you are no doubt an expert on this subject you can provide the following statistics (shouldn't be a problem since you know all about it):

1. How many elderly people are living in the USA
2. What percentage of these own stocks, shares, bonds
3. What percentage own their own home
4. A scale of wealth accumulation - how much wealth is in the hands of the top 20% and bottom 20% etc
5. How much money is channelled into aged care each year per capita (please include state and federal funding).
6. What percentage of aged Americans are living off the pension and how much are they receiving?

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

So you want the elderly to work until they drop dead on the cold, hard floor. My my, how selfish of you.
Nope. I just want them independent of the government. And that can happen easier without social security. There are plenty of liquid assets that the elderly have, as they love investing in cash, gold, and foreign currencies. Many of them also have financial advisors.

Well then I am sure since you are no doubt an expert on this subject you can provide the following statistics (shouldn't be a problem since you know all about it):

1. How many elderly people are living in the USA
2. What percentage of these own stocks, shares, bonds
3. What percentage own their own home
4. A scale of wealth accumulation - how much wealth is in the hands of the top 20% and bottom 20% etc
5. How much money is channelled into aged care each year per capita (please include state and federal funding).
6. What percentage of aged Americans are living off the pension and how much are they receiving?
Not a problem. Expect the statistics in 24 hours, or at least what I can find. Right now, I'm going to bed, as it is quite late on the east coast of the US. Good night.

Military, we cannot fight hate with violence. We must fight hate with love and compassion.

Military, we cannot fight hate with violence. We must fight hate with love and compassion.

Ya, I bet that was what we did wrong in WW2 - The Japs would have been so much easier to deal with had we sent them chocolates after Pearl Harbor instead of bombs.

And the Germans? Why be mad at them? All they did was hold a Jewish Bake sale. We should have sent Hitler Valenties cards and 'showed them some love'. Just think of the lives that could have been spared.

The "Bomb the living shit out of whatever country we draw out of this hat" portion of the military spending.

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

So you want the elderly to work until they drop dead on the cold, hard floor. My my, how selfish of you.
Nope. I just want them independent of the government. And that can happen easier without social security. There are plenty of liquid assets that the elderly have, as they love investing in cash, gold, and foreign currencies. Many of them also have financial advisors.

Well then I am sure since you are no doubt an expert on this subject you can provide the following statistics (shouldn't be a problem since you know all about it):

1. How many elderly people are living in the USA
2. What percentage of these own stocks, shares, bonds
3. What percentage own their own home
4. A scale of wealth accumulation - how much wealth is in the hands of the top 20% and bottom 20% etc
5. How much money is channelled into aged care each year per capita (please include state and federal funding).
6. What percentage of aged Americans are living off the pension and how much are they receiving?

70% of the nation's wealth are controlled by the elderly, and with the eliminatiion of the death tax, it'll likely stay that way. I don't feel that Social Security is needed.

Social security is necessary for the most needy. What about those unable to work (severely disabled people etc)?

As for the elderly...

Wealth = assets + income

The elderly's wealth is in brick and mortar. Are you suggesting they sell their homes to pay for their retirement? Then this would leave nothing to the younger generations who are already whinging they get nothing.

You seem to ignore this fact. Older people are not rich in monetary terms, but asset rich. Having a half a million dollars in brick certainly will not pay for the basics like food.
I do support paying for the most needy of the elderly, and the disabled, as they have no income and/or money.
And no, most of their assets aren't in houses and the like. There's a large part invested in the stock market, and often they recieve a decent, if not disposable, income. Besides, there are many ways to cash into your home without selling it, like through reverse mortgages.

So you want the elderly to work until they drop dead on the cold, hard floor. My my, how selfish of you.
Nope. I just want them independent of the government. And that can happen easier without social security. There are plenty of liquid assets that the elderly have, as they love investing in cash, gold, and foreign currencies. Many of them also have financial advisors.

Well then I am sure since you are no doubt an expert on this subject you can provide the following statistics (shouldn't be a problem since you know all about it):

1. How many elderly people are living in the USA
2. What percentage of these own stocks, shares, bonds
3. What percentage own their own home
4. A scale of wealth accumulation - how much wealth is in the hands of the top 20% and bottom 20% etc
5. How much money is channelled into aged care each year per capita (please include state and federal funding).
6. What percentage of aged Americans are living off the pension and how much are they receiving?
I'm no expert, but here's what I could find.
1. http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/elderpop.html
3. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
6. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/q104tab7.html
I get most of my persuasion on this from Prof. Martin Feldstein of Harvard. A member of the Federal Reserve, he was seen as the likely sucessor to Greenspan. Greenspan has, of course, endorsed Feldstein's ideas. Prof. Feldstein argues that eliminating, or even simple privatizing of Social Security will help far more than it'll hurt. Take a look.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html

"Government is not the solution - it is the problem"

-Ronald Reagan

"Government is not the solution - it is the problem"

-Ronald ReaganI agree, Ronald Reagan was a problem. But I don't see how that is relevant