cutting up the US Budget

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Vic
Instead of just picking it at some fat based on a personal preference, I would propose some kind of PAYGO or balanced budget amendment, where budget deficits would only be allowed in time of war or national emergency.

The best way IMO to cut spending and make government more efficient, while maintaining those services that the people want, is to make sure the people are always footing the bill for it.

YES...but when those enforcements are enacted...a decision would have to be made. Taxes would need to be raised, or 'fat' would need to be cut out of the budget.

When it came time to make those decisions...what would you prefer?

Would you not cut anything, but raises taxes?

Or would you go the other route...in which case: what would you cut from the federal budget?

 

[nakedfrog]

Department of Homeland Security - gone

 

[GTaudiophile]

How start with abolishing earmarks and pork.

You propose Bill X, and Bill X should one thing and one thing only. No amendments. It passes or fails as is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
How start with abolishing earmarks and pork.

You propose Bill X, and Bill X should one thing and one thing only. No amendments. It passes or fails as is.

but but but that'd be too much work. They'd actually have to do their job instead of travel around politicking.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would abolish all law except the Constitution and the Amendments and start over.

win!

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would abolish all law except the Constitution and the Amendments and start over.

win!

Yes, I think that is the first time I've ever agreed with MoonBeam.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I would divert funds from military defense projects into alternative energy initiatives, because I think in the long run that would result in less middle east involvement. Namely a stress on a hydrogen based economy and more research into nuclear fusion and solar power.

I'd cancel Iraq and use that money to open up Medicare to the uninsured, given that it is currently one of the most efficient health management organizations in the world with proper management and implementation it could maintain that efficiency. The goal would be to reintroduce competition among HMOs, currently 90% of them control the health insurance industry and they regularly run about 40% overhead, compared to 2-15% for medicare.

I'd also work on having hospitals upgrade to electronic records storage and put a reemphasis on healthy living through the implementation of better funding for extracurricular sports in secondary school. I would provide tax incentives for those who abstain from smoking and obtain yearly medical checkups.

I would focus on creating a nationalized university system after the State Univeristy of New York setup. I would pay for student's tuition and books at these public universities in exchange for 10 hours a week of community service. I would also create a nationalized cirriculum for public schools, and adjust the way schools are funded so its no longer based on property values. I would deemphasize test scores as a measure of intelligence. I think it would also be important to attack poverty in city schools, as I believe that leads to more crime and less educated students.

THen once I was done with that, I'd have lunch.

I think I would do something more like the HOPE Scholarship in GA. That is lottery funded and pays for tuition at GA public universities for high schools students graduating with a 3.0 GPA or better. They are then reviewed every 30 semester hours or so, and if their GPA remains 3.0 or higher, they get their tuition paid for.

Government handouts must be results oriented if they are to exist at all.

I think I agree with you on new funding strategy for public schools. How about still collect based on property values, but all money goes into a or state pot and then redistributed on an equal basis? School population would also be regulated to be equal from school to school.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ayabe
All aid to Israel stops immediately and outstanding loans are to be paid in full, with interest.

Farm subsidies for corporate farms, gone.

Eliminate the DEA, revoke drug enforcement funds from local police.

Defense spending:

1. Missile defense - gone. Outdated and ineffective.

2. DDX Destroyer program - gone.

3. Iraq war - over. No permanent bases.

4. Funding for research into new nuclear weapons - gone.

China surpasses US as military power, takes over asia holds world economic hostage and has military might to back it up while US military might is on par with Canada.

Yea, great idea.

I'm curious how reductions in missile defense, Iraq, and nuclear weapons would lead to China surpassing the US as a military power and putting the US military on par with China. You fail at logic. Clearly paying taxes and government efficiency only matters to you when its expenditures you don't like, while waste is perfectly acceptable to you as long as its pet projects.

Anyway, China has bigger problems right now. Their government is a corrupt, disorganized mess, their economic growth is unsustainable as is, and their serious environmental problems are making it so they can raise enough food to feed their population.
And I'd think you'd like China. As long as you're a big business, you're free to destroy as much of the little people's property as you want. Dump the toxic waste and screw the property rights of the farmers and the fishermen downstream! Truly the far right's perfect notion of property rights and free markets. Should be heaven to you.

 

[Genx87]

Good to see you worked on 17% of the budget. Now where to cut the pork from the other 83%

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Vic
Instead of just picking it at some fat based on a personal preference, I would propose some kind of PAYGO or balanced budget amendment, where budget deficits would only be allowed in time of war or national emergency.

The best way IMO to cut spending and make government more efficient, while maintaining those services that the people want, is to make sure the people are always footing the bill for it.

YES...but when those enforcements are enacted...a decision would have to be made. Taxes would need to be raised, or 'fat' would need to be cut out of the budget.

When it came time to make those decisions...what would you prefer?

Would you not cut anything, but raises taxes?

Or would you go the other route...in which case: what would you cut from the federal budget?

At the very least it would require a tax hike which will hurt the politicians who proposed the unfunded spending. I am not against Paygo provided it applies across all spending. The problem is it seems paygo gets enacted then only applies to certain types of spending.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ayabe
All aid to Israel stops immediately and outstanding loans are to be paid in full, with interest.

Farm subsidies for corporate farms, gone.

Eliminate the DEA, revoke drug enforcement funds from local police.

Defense spending:

1. Missile defense - gone. Outdated and ineffective.

2. DDX Destroyer program - gone.

3. Iraq war - over. No permanent bases.

4. Funding for research into new nuclear weapons - gone.

China surpasses US as military power, takes over asia holds world economic hostage and has military might to back it up while US military might is on par with Canada.

Yea, great idea.

It's worth noting that research into new nuclear weapons isn't really costing us that much. The government and military is far more interested in dumping money into advanced precision weaponry rather than weapons of mass destruction. Also, Missile defense is not outdated by any means. If it truly proves to be ineffective then we should be spending more money to make our defense against such weapons more efficient.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Vic
Instead of just picking it at some fat based on a personal preference, I would propose some kind of PAYGO or balanced budget amendment, where budget deficits would only be allowed in time of war or national emergency.

The best way IMO to cut spending and make government more efficient, while maintaining those services that the people want, is to make sure the people are always footing the bill for it.

YES...but when those enforcements are enacted...a decision would have to be made. Taxes would need to be raised, or 'fat' would need to be cut out of the budget.

When it came time to make those decisions...what would you prefer?

Would you not cut anything, but raises taxes?

Or would you go the other route...in which case: what would you cut from the federal budget?

I would advocate cuts pretty much across the board.
Defense would be relegated to defense, that's for sure. These constant foreign wars are not only costly but un-American.
As well, safety nets and welfare would be safety nets and no more. I'm opposed to handouts but not hand-UPs.
But if Social Security is to go away, then I want my money back. Otherwise, fix it.
I agree that the DEA and farm subsidies have to go. ALL corporate welfare too, gone.
Most govt programs that can be put on a user fee type basis should be IMO.
Tax cuts will have to wait until the debt is paid down. The interest on the debt is one of the govt's biggest expenditures. Plus it is harmful to our economy in general, which is something most other countries already figured out a couple of decades ago, and why our dollar is getting its ass kicked right now in the global markets.
Can't think of anything else at the moment...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Vic
Instead of just picking it at some fat based on a personal preference, I would propose some kind of PAYGO or balanced budget amendment, where budget deficits would only be allowed in time of war or national emergency.

The best way IMO to cut spending and make government more efficient, while maintaining those services that the people want, is to make sure the people are always footing the bill for it.

YES...but when those enforcements are enacted...a decision would have to be made. Taxes would need to be raised, or 'fat' would need to be cut out of the budget.

When it came time to make those decisions...what would you prefer?

Would you not cut anything, but raises taxes?

Or would you go the other route...in which case: what would you cut from the federal budget?

I would advocate cuts pretty much across the board.
Defense would be relegated to defense, that's for sure. These constant foreign wars are not only costly but un-American.
As well, safety nets and welfare would be safety nets and no more. I'm opposed to handouts but not hand-UPs.
But if Social Security is to go away, then I want my money back. Otherwise, fix it.
I agree that the DEA and farm subsidies have to go. ALL corporate welfare too, gone.
Most govt programs that can be put on a user fee type basis should be IMO.
Tax cuts will have to wait until the debt is paid down. The interest on the debt is one of the govt's biggest expenditures. Plus it is harmful to our economy in general, which is something most other countries already figured out a couple of decades ago, and why our dollar is getting its ass kicked right now in the global markets.
Can't think of anything else at the moment...

:thumbsup:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ayabe
All aid to Israel stops immediately and outstanding loans are to be paid in full, with interest.

Farm subsidies for corporate farms, gone.

Eliminate the DEA, revoke drug enforcement funds from local police.

Defense spending:

1. Missile defense - gone. Outdated and ineffective.

2. DDX Destroyer program - gone.

3. Iraq war - over. No permanent bases.

4. Funding for research into new nuclear weapons - gone.

China surpasses US as military power, takes over asia holds world economic hostage and has military might to back it up while US military might is on par with Canada.

Yea, great idea.

It's worth noting that research into new nuclear weapons isn't really costing us that much. The government and military is far more interested in dumping money into advanced precision weaponry rather than weapons of mass destruction. Also, Missile defense is not outdated by any means. If it truly proves to be ineffective then we should be spending more money to make our defense against such weapons more efficient.

Well it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact there was a program approved recently for this, not just maintaining what we have, but to develop new warheads IIRC.

Missile defense is a total cluster and always has been. Are we threatened by nuclear weapons? Sure. Is missile defense capable of defending us against it? No.

Because the most likely source of a nuclear attack isn't going to be Russia or China, it will be from a homemade, low yield device or some such put together by terrorists.

I've stated all of this previously but I think we really need to put things in perspective.

You could pay for state college tuition for every single high school graduate in the country for ~10 billion dollars a year, or about 1 month of operating in Iraq.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Cut back basically everything. I bet most departments could be scaled back. Kill the fat, keep the lean meat. Government is notoriously indolent and for good reason.

What exactly would you cut back? Please be specific.

Pick a field, I'll find fat. For starters, less military. Not really sure the US needs more carrier fleets than the rest of the world put together (?). Next up, start aggressively phasing out social security, which is a burden. Keep it in place for those who are at or nearing retirement with a tiered coverage for those who have more time to pay for themselves and leave it only in place as a last-resort, going forward, to encourage financial responsibility in the proles. Other things I may do is link public employees' incomes/benefits to the economy, since that's what happens to private people. Economy sours, we don't get raises or maybe even cutbacks, but public employees seem to keep getting their silly raises. I'd bring things closer to a black budget, too, leaving red not as a general matter of course but something that requires a real reason.

I would propose some kind of PAYGO or balanced budget amendment, where budget deficits would only be allowed in time of war or national emergency.

Yep, just what I'm sayin!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Well it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact there was a program approved recently for this, not just maintaining what we have, but to develop new warheads IIRC.

Missile defense is a total cluster and always has been. Are we threatened by nuclear weapons? Sure. Is missile defense capable of defending us against it? No.

Because the most likely source of a nuclear attack isn't going to be Russia or China, it will be from a homemade, low yield device or some such put together by terrorists.

I've stated all of this previously but I think we really need to put things in perspective.

You could pay for state college tuition for every single high school graduate in the country for ~10 billion dollars a year, or about 1 month of operating in Iraq.

I don't know anything about new warheads, if they are actually being developed, and why they are being developed so I really cannot comment on that.

However, the reason why the most likley source of a nuclear attack (or any attack which normally involves missiles) will involve detonating a device here on our own soil as opposed to something being shot at us from far away has a lot to do with our Missile Defense System. If that were not in place, I would have some serious issues with the potential threat from other countries and their navy despite how superior our navy is in comparison. Also, part of the programs which revolve around precision weaponry are also heavily involved in defense using similar technologies which is why we have seen a huge shift in where the funding is going towards.

In regards to your comment about Iraq, the war, and college tuition I'd say that's a separate issue since our Missile Defense System is necessary regardless of the war. I do agree with you in the sense that I would rather see that war money go towards students here in the states though.

 

[miketheidiot]

theres a lot of places worth looking at but the big ones wort looking at would be the following:
military (the army desperately needs a cut in funding, the airforce and navy are fine imo)
every post 9/11 bill could probably use a revamp or gutting. Start by killing the tsa and start over with something sane
farm bills -> kill off family farms for good already, their a fucking anachronism and not worth the tax dollars; also, certainly more means testing, etc
fix the medicare prescription drug mess


with those, and others, axed, i would reinvest in research, education, and infrastructure.

 

[ayabe]

Part of the problem is that we can only eliminate what we know about.

The sad fact is that most Congress members don't even know what is in the budget. Sure some of the high profile stuff gets fought over and trumpeted on cable news. But it's the small stuff, that's tucked away on page 799 section IV, Article X that we don't hear about.

Sure a few million here, a few million there..but that stuff adds up very quickly.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ayabe

Well it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact there was a program approved recently for this, not just maintaining what we have, but to develop new warheads IIRC.

Missile defense is a total cluster and always has been. Are we threatened by nuclear weapons? Sure. Is missile defense capable of defending us against it? No.

Because the most likely source of a nuclear attack isn't going to be Russia or China, it will be from a homemade, low yield device or some such put together by terrorists.

I've stated all of this previously but I think we really need to put things in perspective.

You could pay for state college tuition for every single high school graduate in the country for ~10 billion dollars a year, or about 1 month of operating in Iraq.

I don't know anything about new warheads, if they are actually being developed, and why they are being developed so I really cannot comment on that.

However, the reason why the most likley source of a nuclear attack (or any attack which normally involves missiles) will involve detonating a device here on our own soil as opposed to something being shot at us from far away has a lot to do with our Missile Defense System. If that were not in place, I would have some serious issues with the potential threat from other countries and their navy despite how superior our navy is in comparison. Also, part of the programs which revolve around precision weaponry are also heavily involved in defense using similar technologies which is why we have seen a huge shift in where the funding is going towards.

In regards to your comment about Iraq, the war, and college tuition I'd say that's a separate issue since our Missile Defense System is necessary regardless of the war. I do agree with you in the sense that I would rather see that war money go towards students here in the states though.

But no one with the capability to attack us is going to, because of MAD. We lived through that for 50 years, that time has really passed. If Russia wants to nuke us, they will, and even if missile defense stops 75% of the 20,000 warheads coming down on our heads, it really wouldn't take more than a dozen warheads to pretty much decimate the country, or even one on NYC or DC.

All it really does is piss off Russia and lead them to develop new warheads, which they already claim to have, which render our current system ineffective anyways.

Missile defense, along with a lot of our current large dollar defense expenditures are still stuck in the Cold War.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ayabe

But no one with the capability to attack us is going to, because of MAD. We lived through that for 50 years, that time has really passed. If Russia wants to nuke us, they will, and even if missile defense stops 75% of the 20,000 warheads coming down on our heads, it really wouldn't take more than a dozen warheads to pretty much decimate the country, or even one on NYC or DC.

All it really does is piss off Russia and lead them to develop new warheads, which they already claim to have, which render our current system ineffective anyways.

Missile defense, along with a lot of our current large dollar defense expenditures are still stuck in the Cold War.

So it won't fend off 20,000 warheads. At least it prevents anyone from launching just a handful at us because they know that the efforts will be in vain. I don't expect our government to provide us with a magical shield that will 100% prevent any attacks on our country, but I do expect them to provide the kind of protection like our Missile Defense System. A very large part of protecting the country is justifying to our enemies that the vast majority of attacks that they can muster against our homeland are futile.

It's just like our submarine force. There is a very good reason why there are enough SSBN subs deployed out there to launch an attack at any target in the world at any time.

 

[BlancoNino]

Cut everything out except for what the federal government was originally designed to do. Leave the rest up to the states.

 

[lupi]

I was gonna type a nice reply, but then I read the rest of the OP text. Ah it must be summer time as the delusional trolls are coming out from under the bridges.

 

[StageLeft]

There is a very good reason why there are enough SSBN subs deployed out there to launch an attack at any target in the world at any time.

I'm hard.

 

[OFFascist]

I'd start off with welfare, and foreign aid.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: maddogchen
i would cut the payroll of the congress and the president

Actually, I would probably increase it. There is less incentive to take bribes/lobbyist money if our elected officials are paid handsomely.

BS. How much were the Enron executives making? Are we going to turn Congress into a bunch of multi-billionaires? Dictators can be in charge of entire countries and still want more. You pay them more, and they're just going to wonder how much more they can get away with.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
How start with abolishing earmarks and pork.

You propose Bill X, and Bill X should one thing and one thing only. No amendments. It passes or fails as is.

but but but that'd be too much work. They'd actually have to do their job instead of travel around politicking.

Exactly.
This will happen as soon as they make lobbyist "donations" illegal. The day after that, flocks of winged unicorns will fly over the Great Plains.

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious how reductions in missile defense, Iraq, and nuclear weapons would lead to China surpassing the US as a military power and putting the US military on par with China. You fail at logic. Clearly paying taxes and government efficiency only matters to you when its expenditures you don't like, while waste is perfectly acceptable to you as long as its pet projects.

You lack JS80's healthy sense of extreme paranoia. We have to expand our military and spend enough that we strangle ourselves economically like the Soviet Union did. That'll show those Chinese who's boss!


Less military spending, more on science education, math education, scientific research, and higher education. I'd also like to see a bit more encouragement for the integration of a philosophy course into higher education coursework. Each degree seems to have a range of general-education classes worked in. Granted, it's been only my experience with two philosophy courses, but I found them to be quite helpful in letting me see how information is filtered, and how preconceptions shade everything. Insights into how you think, and how others think, can be quite useful, and in my opinion, could be useful in helping people spot deceptive tactics used by officials in positions of power. Implementing such a thing would not go over well though - those in power don't necessarily want a more discerning populace that could revoke that power.

Energy research: Necessary. Oil-burning transportation will not last forever. I like electric vehicles because I see it as allowing for easier distribution, and potentially generation. Hydrogen would likely need to be piped everywhere, which would required drastic changes to infrastructure. Electrical infrastructure is already in place, though it would need upgrades. Future advances in solar and other distributed renewables would take some of the burden off of the grid.

Vic's proposals sound good. I'd especially like to see less spent on ways of killing people. If military spending must be done, fine, keep it on defending the country; no more wars of choice.
We keep talking about spreading democracy, usually from the end of a rifle, but what we seem better at is implementing dictators who we know will support us. We can't risk implementing a democracy and then have a leader get elected who opposes relations with the US - especially if they don't want to sell us oil. China and India - nice big markets there. It can't really be a true democracy, as that's just way too risky.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It's just like our submarine force. There is a very good reason why there are enough SSBN subs deployed out there to launch an attack at any target in the world at any time.

How I'd love to see the day when it's not necessary for everyone to have a gun pointed at everyone else's head, in the hope that no one fires first. Maybe in another thousand years. Damn pathetic, primitive primates.