NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep, you get another dose of me being an alarmist. I think I'm being perfectly rational here, but you can chime in. I'm writing from a realist perspective.

The US is in serious danger, not from a foreign threat, but from incredible amounts of governmental spending. We are going into debt, just like the third world nations did years ago. We have to tighten our belts.

First off, there are several things I'd say we must keep, namely education, the military, law enforcement, the census, the postal service, the interstate highway system, national intelligence, and certain regulatory agencies.

Secondly, we must cut the stuff that is not vital to our national survival. Federal medical programs-snip, same goes for so much of this pork-barrel shit. Farm subsidies and corporate welfare must be slowly phased out, foreign aid to all but the most vital nations must be cut.

Our prescence in certain stable nations (Germany, South Korea) must be limited to very basic things. Medical facilities, and the capabilities to maintain large airbases are important. We have to finish up in Iraq. There are also certain regulatory agencies that must go.

I think you catch my drift by now.

Yep, you get another dose of me being an alarmist. I think I'm being perfectly rational here, but you can chime in. I'm writing from a realist perspective.

The US is in serious danger, not from a foreign threat, but from incredible amounts of governmental spending. We are going into debt, just like the third world nations did years ago. We have to tighten our belts.

First off, there are several things I'd say we must keep, namely education, the military, law enforcement, the census, the postal service, the interstate highway system, national intelligence, and certain regulatory agencies.

Secondly, we must cut the stuff that is not vital to our national survival. Federal medical programs-snip, same goes for so much of this pork-barrel shit. Farm subsidies and corporate welfare must be slowly phased out, foreign aid to all but the most vital nations must be cut.


Our prescence in certain stable nations (Germany, South Korea) must be limited to very basic things. Medical facilities, and the capabilities to maintain large airbases are important. We have to finish up in Iraq. There are also certain regulatory agencies that must go.

I think you catch my drift by now.
I like the direction you're going in, but it doesn't seem like enough. Privatize the post office like any other industry. More ideas to come.

Not in DC. Apparently, they see that you can pay for anything by printing money and borrowing, so I doubt pork barrel spending will be cut just because it is such great political capital.

Also:
Isn't it ironic that Republicans have been the biggest spenders of the past 20 years? What the hell happened along the way? (Reagan might be excepted in some cases because the arms race helped end the Cold War).

Not in DC. Apparently, they see that you can pay for anything by printing money and borrowing, so I doubt pork barrel spending will be cut just because it is such great political capital.

Also:
Isn't it ironic that Republicans have been the biggest spenders of the past 20 years? What the hell happened along the way? (Reagan might be excepted in some cases because the arms race helped end the Cold War).
They need to learn to learn how to spend money wisely.

I like the direction you're going in, but it doesn't seem like enough. Privatize the post office like any other industry. More ideas to come.

Biggest employer in the world. :eek:

Not in DC. Apparently, they see that you can pay for anything by printing money and borrowing, so I doubt pork barrel spending will be cut just because it is such great political capital.

Also:
Isn't it ironic that Republicans have been the biggest spenders of the past 20 years? What the hell happened along the way? (Reagan might be excepted in some cases because the arms race helped end the Cold War).
The Republicans have become frighteningly populist of late...I don't know why I didn't realize it until recently. I'd assume it's related to just trying to maximize votes now, with total disregard to the future. Something I suspect the dems would also be doing.

They need to learn to learn how to spend money wisely.

They don't want to though, because cash brings them votes, and votes keep them in office to vote on a raise whenever they feel like it.

They don't want to though, because cash brings them votes, and votes keep them in office to vote on a raise whenever they feel like it.
I'd bet sufficient alarmism would keep either party in office, espescially with the risk of the US falling into a depression like state. I'd support either party that truly stood for financial responsibility.

The Republicans have become frighteningly populist of late...I don't know why I didn't realize it until recently. I'd assume it's related to just trying to maximize votes now, with total disregard to the future. Something I suspect the dems would also be doing.

I would just bite the bullet and raise taxes. Clinton did it, and he survived the backlash. He knew it was necessary. In fact, his fiscal discipline was partially responsible for the 90's boom.

Bush has never vetoed a spending bill.

Bush has never vetoed a spending bill.
I know, that's another one of the bad things about unified government. You get them tossing all sorts of stuff without virtually any opposition.

I'd bet sufficient alarmism would keep either party in office, espescially with the risk of the US falling into a depression like state. I'd support either party that truly stood for financial responsibility.

Actually, we're kind of screwed. The economic expansion post 2001 recession has been sustained almost entirely on cheap credit and the steady rise in tax refunds and cuts. These cuts produce deficits, which flood the world with dollar denominated debt, lowering the dollar's value through supply and demand. However, now that rates are going up, the USD supply is constricting, making dollar denominated debt less profitable. And so, the US can't borrow as easily and eventually we will either have to default (World War 3) or raise taxes (Hopefully gradually enough to avoid economic problems). Either way it will be painful.

I know, that's another one of the bad things about unified government. You get them tossing all sorts of stuff without virtually any opposition.

That's why there will be a backlash in 2006 and/or 2008. The Republican Party policy just isn't working.

That's why there will be a backlash in 2006 and/or 2008. The Republican Party policy just isn't working.
Personally I want a Republican President, the Senate strongly democrat, and the house nearly fifty-fifty. That would sufficiently slow everything down.

Personally I want a Republican President, the Senate strongly democrat, and the house nearly fifty-fifty. That would sufficiently slow everything down.

I'd like the opposite, with a Centrist Democrat President, Republican House, and 50/50 Senate. This would slow but not stop any action.

Plus, there needs to be a bill limiting spending to the rate of inflation at least in the biggest programs.

Oh God, you said the C word, Vet.

Anyway, while I agree that federal spending has gone wildly out of control, I think that what needs to be preserved is this: healthcare, social security, education, military, necessary infrastructure, and yes, welfare. That is, Universal Free Healthcare, streamlined social security, education modelled after the Netherlands or another Scandinavian education model, SEVERELY DECREASED MILITARY SPENDING, and maintaining things like the highways, the borders, that sort of thing. And, oh yes, eliminate pork-barrel spending. If only I were President...

I'm not sure about farm subsidies, as I don't know much about how they change the dynamic of agriculture - weren't they necessary in order to avoid.. something, back in the Depression? Bleh, my history is wanting. As for corporate welfare, here-here.

I'd like the opposite, with a Centrist Democrat President, Republican House, and 50/50 Senate. This would slow but not stop any action.
I wouldn't be the slightest bit opposed to such an alignment.

Plus, there needs to be a bill limiting spending to the rate of inflation at least in the biggest programs.
Yes.

Inflation is whats going to bite us in the ass. If we cut the spending in Iraq we would have amphel funding for other programs without raising taxes. Politicians look out for their own, did you even see all the pork barrel spending hidden in the budget?

Inflation is whats going to bite us in the ass. If we cut the spending in Iraq we would have amphel funding for other programs without raising taxes. Politicians look out for their own, did you even see all the pork barrel spending hidden in the budget?

Highway spending is notorious. I'd be surprised if 50% goes to actual highway work. I think it's around $230 billion this year.

Highway spending is notorious. I'd be surprised if 50% goes to actual highway work. I think it's around $230 billion this year.
What the hell?! :eek: If you put toll booths on certain highways you may be able to raise a few million. $230 billion, that is FAR, FAR too high.

What the hell?! :eek: If you put toll booths on certain highways you may be able to raise a few million. $230 billion, that is FAR, FAR too high.

Clarification

The spending on actual highways is about 62.5 billion. The $234 bln. covers all road projects. Still, it is growing at 4.2% per year!

The defense budget grows at 4.5 percent per year, or almost 20 billion/ year.