cutting up the US Budget

[Sinsear]

Welfare.

 

[Craig234]

I'm going to say I think this topic is too complex, and people know too little about the actual spending, for it to likely be useful.

My general principles for spending, though, are for things that are either good investments (create wealth), or which are moral needs.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I'd pretty much eliminate all the entitlement and handout programs, medicare/SS/welfare/food stamps/etc.. and a big chunk of defense spending. Probably cut the budget by 70%

In a perfect world we wouldn't need such programs but we don't live in a perfect world. We need defense and we need the handout programs you mentioned or there would be chaos. Do these programs need enemas? You betcha, but eliminating them isn't the solution imho.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

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.

Me too. Unfortunately, neither of us were born in a day and age where we will get to see that happen assuming it ever does.

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I'd pretty much eliminate all the entitlement and handout programs, medicare/SS/welfare/food stamps/etc.. and a big chunk of defense spending. Probably cut the budget by 70%

In a perfect world we wouldn't need such programs but we don't live in a perfect world. We need defense and we need the handout programs you mentioned or there would be chaos. Do these programs need enemas? You betcha, but eliminating them isn't the solution imho.

That's right. The biggest difference that we would see as a nation is an increase in crime due to desperation. Last I checked, crime does not only effect the criminals. The response would be an increase in police force to try and balance the issue, which means increasing funding in that area. This will be followed by increased arrests and a lot more people will go to jail and we all know how much housing criminals is costing us. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised is cutting these programs would lead to both increased crime and more of our tax dollars spent on these people. I hate the leechers as much as the next guy, but I am not stupid. I know that I am left with no choice but to pick the lesser of two evils. I also believe that there are better ways to handle this problem. I am just not entirely sure what they are yet from A-Z. I got some theories like most people but they really are not educated enough to the point where I would want to jump the gun and immediately demand policy.

 

[ayabe]

I still believe there are too many loopholes in some housing programs and welfare/foodstamps.

While well intentioned, it does really burn me up when the woman in front of me is buying all of her food on foodstamps, but is buying magazines, nail polish, etc. with cash and climbs into a new Jeep as a I saw just two days ago at Publix.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I still believe there are too many loopholes in some housing programs and welfare/foodstamps.

While well intentioned, it does really burn me up when the woman in front of me is buying all of her food on foodstamps, but is buying magazines, nail polish, etc. with cash and climbs into a new Jeep as a I saw just two days ago at Publix.

What you saw in that scenario most likely does not involve a loophole. It probably involves her having a sugar daddy boyfriend or family members. Regardless, there are loopholes that should be plugged.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ayabe
I still believe there are too many loopholes in some housing programs and welfare/foodstamps.

While well intentioned, it does really burn me up when the woman in front of me is buying all of her food on foodstamps, but is buying magazines, nail polish, etc. with cash and climbs into a new Jeep as a I saw just two days ago at Publix.

What you saw in that scenario most likely does not involve a loophole. It probably involves her having a sugar daddy boyfriend or family members. Regardless, there are loopholes that should be plugged.

Then clearly that's a loophole, no? Assistance is for people who need it. People with brand new SUVs don't need it. Their sugar daddies, boyfriends, and family members should buy them food if that's what they need and stop making me pay for their food while they get to spend money on luxury items.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ayabe
I still believe there are too many loopholes in some housing programs and welfare/foodstamps.

While well intentioned, it does really burn me up when the woman in front of me is buying all of her food on foodstamps, but is buying magazines, nail polish, etc. with cash and climbs into a new Jeep as a I saw just two days ago at Publix.

What you saw in that scenario most likely does not involve a loophole. It probably involves her having a sugar daddy boyfriend or family members. Regardless, there are loopholes that should be plugged.

Then clearly that's a loophole, no? Assistance is for people who need it. People with brand new SUVs don't need it. Their sugar daddies, boyfriends, and family members should buy them food if that's what they need and stop making me pay for their food while they get to spend money on luxury items.

I agree, but I also realize that the amount of money it would cost to successfully regulate that sort of thing would probably be a lot more than the money we lose due to these cases. Not to mention that the success of such regulation would most likely involve some really serious invasions of privacy especially considering how often and how quickly a lot women are able to find themselves sugar daddies. That invasion of privacy would not only be limited to those actually on the programs, but it would also be needed for the sugar daddies themselves if we actually expect it to work. The govt would have to be constantly monitoring every single one of them which is obviously very unrealistic.

Besides, most people on these programs are not purchasing hardly any luxury items. Those that do constitute nothing more than a drop in the bucket in terms of the real issues at hand.

 

[m1ldslide1]

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.

By 'takes over asia' do you mean that they actually mobilize and conquer Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, N/S Korea, etc? If you really think that's going to happen, and want us to go fight that war, then I can kind of see how you would arrive at your point.

If what you mean is that China continues to grow as an economic superpower (whose growth is in no way tempered by US military spending - if anything they benefit from it) and then charges outrageous rates for their goods and services once they reach a certain point of influence, I still don't understand how our military will factor in. "Your textiles and microprocessors are too expensive - ATTACK!!!"

Nice.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I'd pretty much eliminate all the entitlement and handout programs, medicare/SS/welfare/food stamps/etc.. and a big chunk of defense spending. Probably cut the budget by 70%

What do you believe those people who rely on those programs will do if we just cut them all one day? Keep in mind that I hate the lazy leechers as much as the next guy, but I would still like to hear what you believe the outcome would be beyond having a larger pool of tax money for our government to work with. Personally, I believe we will see a very large increase in crime, hunger, drugs, and homeless people.

Get a job, starve, or get tossed in jail.

And make jail less tolerable, free cable and full health care my ass.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I'd pretty much eliminate all the entitlement and handout programs, medicare/SS/welfare/food stamps/etc.. and a big chunk of defense spending. Probably cut the budget by 70%

What do you believe those people who rely on those programs will do if we just cut them all one day? Keep in mind that I hate the lazy leechers as much as the next guy, but I would still like to hear what you believe the outcome would be beyond having a larger pool of tax money for our government to work with. Personally, I believe we will see a very large increase in crime, hunger, drugs, and homeless people.

Get a job, starve, or get tossed in jail.

And make jail less tolerable, free cable and full health care my ass.

Read the other posts. The resulting outcome is less favorable than what we are currently doing and it will cost us even more money even if we eliminate a few things which you believe the inmates should not be given. Your solution is very unrealistic. No amount of hatred or justification regarding what is "fair" will turn what you want into policy because those in power have already analyzed what will happen if we do.