Page 1 of 7
What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:07 pm
by liberty
It should be clear to everyone by now that the national debt is a sleeping monster that will wake up and devour us someday if we don’t act. And it should be clear that raising taxes alone is not the answer because congress will always find a way to spend the money rather than pay off or down the debt. We have to cut something from the national budget, but what should be cut? Some things can be eliminated but some thing can not be eliminated and they are:
Interest on the national debt. ( protected by the constitution and the fourteenth amendment)
Military pensions ( 14th amendment)
Social security payments. People who paid into the system own their position in the system because they paid into it like insurance, it is not charity.
Things that are not protected:
Any form of a federal grant.
Any federal foreign aid. We pay fifty billion dollars a year for George Bush’s African AIDS/ HIV
Program.
Welfare in any form.
All other federal government programs that are not specifically specified in the national constitution. (example; the department of education)
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:32 pm
by Gob
Your military should be cut by 50%.
Your military presence outside of the US should be returned home where they can be productive.
All aid to Israel.
All corporate welfare.
Your tax system should be overhauled to make it fair.
All overseas tax evasion by the use of tax havens should be penalised.
Exporting jobs should be taxed out of existence.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:34 pm
by Grim Reaper
Any federal foreign aid. We pay fifty billion dollars a year for George Bush’s African AIDS/ HIV Program.
Who wants to guess how much is actually spent?
Answer: The budget for FY 2010 was
$6.8 billion dollars. The AIDS program was also expanded a couple years ago to include Tuberculosis and Malaria programs.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:38 pm
by Joe Guy
Ending our current wars in order to to cut back on military spending would go a long way toward helping our economy since, in my opinion, the cost of war is not something the U.S economy can afford to maintain for long periods.
Specifically, the cost of the Afghan, Iraqi and Libya war is not anywhere near worth the price we are paying in money and loss of lives.
The cost of war is much more than the price of weapons and sending troop overseas. Our military men return here after fighting our wars and too many of them become basket cases with no real support from the government. The cost of dealing with messed up ex-military people is difficult to put a number on - but it is a very serious & costly problem.
So, that's where we start.
Then we can cut back on some of the many wastes of our money spent on things like studying the mating habits of lizards and earthworms.
btw - pardon my ignorance, but is there a difference between "liberty" and "liberty1"?
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:47 pm
by Gob
I think it worth remembering that, although in dollar terms the US may appear to be giving away a great deal of foreign aid, as a percentage of GDP it is relatively small. The aid donation amount is not a part of the US's financial problems, other countries manage to give far more.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:57 pm
by Gob
“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.”
- John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:51 pm
by liberty
Joe Guy wrote:
btw - pardon my ignorance, but is there a difference between "liberty" and "liberty1"?
Yes, there is he is much more conservative than I am. But was I wrong about something. I just tried to present the fact as I see it. Unless the we violate the constitution some expenditure have to made. And whether you like it or not foreign aid is not one of them.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:02 pm
by Gob
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:13 pm
by Gob
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:22 pm
by Gob
Atop our giant government health-care sector, we have an even more giant private health-care sector. Altogether, we’re spending about 16 percent of the GDP on health care. No other country even tops 12 percent. Which means we’ve got the worst of both worlds: huge government and high costs.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:08 pm
by Long Run
There doesn't seem to be much priority in the above. The only reason we had a federal government in the first place was to provide for the common defense, and defense is still the number one priority for the federal government. I have no problem with a discussion of what our defense needs are that may lead to reduced military spending, but that discussion happens apart from we need to cut spending so lets take it out of the military. Once the highest priority is funded, and there is plenty of money for whatever level that is, then you decide how to spend the rest. This is what priorities are all about.
On social programs, I think Liberty makes a good point regarding Social Security and Medicare. These have been sold as "insurance" programs, they have dedicated sources of revenue, and these explicit contracts should be honored (even though legally they can be cut).
Gob, the numbers you provide on foreign aid are somewhat misleading since they do not include the charitable giving by U.S. citizens relative to other nations. The U.S. is one of the leading nations in terms of giving by its citizens. Also, people may not see it as such, but having a military that acts as the world's primary policeman, preventing some tyrants from doing too much damage, keeping some peoples safe from local bullies, ensuring that more donations get to their intended beneficiaries, etc. is also a form of giving, and the U.S. spends way more as a % of GDP on that than any other nation.
I agree about figuring out a way to rationalize our healthcare system so that it doesn't eat up so much money, public and private. Unfortunately our most recent attempt at that did not do much if anything in terms of reducing costs.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:36 pm
by Guinevere
Common defense and General welfare, thank you very much. They are equal priorities, so one should not be sacrified for the other. Unfortunately, that's where we are at today. I'f we are going to make budget and policy decisions that undercut the welfare of our citizens (and to be clear, I mean the concept, not the program) then we need to make equal cuts in the defense side. Period.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:11 pm
by Liberty1
Elliminate baseline budgeting
Increase the social security age in a phased manor 1 month for every year (or 6 months even) for people under 55, until it eventually reaches 70.
Elliminate Medicare D
Ellimnate Obamacare
Elliminate the department of education
Elliminate the department of labor
Elliminate the army corps of engineers
Elliminate the US geological survery
Close down archaic offices and commisions (Office of Navajo and Hopi relocation, Rural utilities service, Historic whaling and trading exchance........................................)
Defund non-essential, stupid government waste (Commision of fine arts, US institute of peace, National endoement for humanities, National endowment of art....................)
End all coporate welfare
End all farm subsidies
Elliminate the SBA
Elliminate the tax code.
Elliminate all tax deductions and incentives
a single flat tax for everyone on all income above $20K
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:33 pm
by quaddriver
Gob wrote:I think it worth remembering that, although in dollar terms the US may appear to be giving away a great deal of foreign aid, as a percentage of GDP it is relatively small. The aid donation amount is not a part of the US's financial problems, other countries manage to give far more.
if another country can pay a larger %age of their GDP for something - yay for them!
the argument is useless when one country nearly equals the sum of all others.
the argument fails further when the one country takes in the disposed of people from the others.
the argument ends when the other countries owe the fact that they are still countries due to the blood sacrifice of one other country.
The USA owes jack schitt to anyone and I would be among those who insist we turn off the teats and focus inwards for a while.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:39 pm
by quaddriver
before we toss out the army corp of engineers....does anyone who supports that ACTUALLY know what they do?
Domestically?
Foreign?
Im sorta doubting it...
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:24 pm
by Liberty1
before we toss out the army corp of engineers....does anyone who supports that ACTUALLY know what they do?
They're in charge of building levees and damns. No new damsn are being built, I doubt levees either, just fixing and maintaining. something that can be done by the states.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:29 pm
by quaddriver
liberty1 wrote:before we toss out the army corp of engineers....does anyone who supports that ACTUALLY know what they do?
They're in charge of building levees and damns. No new damsn are being built, I doubt levees either, just fixing and maintaining. something that can be done by the states.
Thats an oversimplification, but yes, that is part of it. And no state would be in charge of dams or levees because they seem to lose interest past state borders. The ACoE districts span a flood prone watershed from the source to the sea.
Dams, levees, water quality, bridge anchoring engineering, runoff concerns. sometimes even recreation.
However, when we deliver aid to countries and build schools and bridges and power plants and the like, the ACoE does THAT as well.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:00 pm
by Lord Jim
Common defense and General welfare, thank you very much. They are equal priorities
Well...not exactly...
If we fail to provide adequately for the the "General Welfare", we can always redress it...
If we fail to provide adequately for the "Common defense" discussions about the "General Welfare" become academic....
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:01 pm
by Gob
Long Run wrote:
Gob, the numbers you provide on foreign aid are somewhat misleading since they do not include the charitable giving by U.S. citizens relative to other nations.
The figures I gave are not in anyway misleading, when discussing what should be cut from GOVERNMENT spending.
The US GOVERNMENT spends less, as a percentage of GDP, on foreign aid than most first world countries by a long shot.
If you took out the massive amount that goes to keep another affluent nation in guns and bombs, Israel, the amount the US spent on foreign aid is minuscule.
Therefore cutting foreign aid is not a way to solve your insolvency problems.
Re: What should be cut?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:06 pm
by Long Run
Gob wrote:
Therefore cutting foreign aid is not a way to solve your insolvency problems.
Fair point (though we are not insolvent at this point, just ridiculously in debt). Though, like most every other program, eliminating increases in foreign aid should be the starting point in figuring out how to bring spending in line with revenue.
