Government spending cuts!

LIBERTYorDEATH

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
350
0
0
Ok we hear how we can't afford a tax cut , but oh yes we can. And the way to do it is to CUT government spending. I personally would gut the federal government, but lets here what programs you folks would cut out of the government budget, and /or slash funding to

A few starters I would close out and sell the buildings they occupy are:

1. agriculture department
2. FCC
3. HUD
4. The federal food stamp block grant program
5. the national endowment for the arts
6. the federal department of education(this is at best a local issue, not federal)
7. NATO membership(without a ussr, who needs NATO)
8. FAA(privatize the flight control system)
9. DEA(drug use laws infringe individual liberty)
10. Amtrack(if passenger service was profitable, it would be picked up by private railroads..if not, then let it die)

Ok, there are ten easy ones, but there are thousands more so lets here your suggestions
 

Well
that could work.
But, what about all the problems with the FAA and the planes not being up to spec.
Agriculture is rather important in my opinion.
But cutting the fat with in. All for it!
:D
 

LIBERTYorDEATH

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
350
0
0
Ok yall are not doing so good here are a few more:

social security(the biggest ponzi scheme ever..if individuals tried this they would be under the jail but its ok for government, huh?)

medicare

medicaid

usda

FDA'

come on folks what would you cut out of the government
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Yeh, lets cut the FDA and USDA. That'll help the health of the nation! :disgust:
 

LIBERTYorDEATH

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
350
0
0
vi_edit, think of it this way..

When the FDA puts out a press release saying they have just concluded 7 years of clinical trials and approved a drug (this happens all the time) that will save thousands of lives a year from..you pick the disease..

how many thousands died during the 7 years of testing that the fda would not allow to access said drug? I do not allow ANYONE to tell me what I can put into my body. Never have, never will. If you want someone to tell you what its ok for you to put into your body, then a private company like underwriters labs is the place to go, not the damn government
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
You NEED the USDA and FDA! I'm semi-libertarian (particularily on miliary and SS views) but you need to have these gov't programs. Ever read The Jungle?
Nuff said.
 

C'DaleRider

Guest
Jan 13, 2000
3,048
0
0


<< I do not allow ANYONE to tell me what I can put into my body. >>


Live on your own island, eh? Live in the US and you do allow someone to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body. Try to find thalidamide. Oh, you can't find this....the FDA outlawed its use here in the US........guess the birth defects were cause enough.

Removing all the departments from the federal government would indeed drop taxes......federal taxes that is. But most of those functions would drop into the states' lap, and the states would most definitely increase their tax rates to do those jobs. It certainly is trendy to bray about no agriculture dept., no FCC, etc.....yet give no consideration to the long term consequences of these actions.

To completely decentralize almost all the governmental agencies you talk of would throw us back to the days of the states acting like independent countries. Each setting its own standards, no uniformity between them. Importation/exportation of goods, for one example, would drastically change.

Imagine Toyota facing 50 different clean air standards, or sets of safety regulations. Further imagine each state with &quot;border tarriffs&quot; that must be satisfied before goods move across their state lines. That in itself would drive up the cost of doing business more in some states vs. others. This could have the effect of making some states quite unattractive to live in (very high taxes but broad state government services) as opposed to others (low taxes but few government services). But buying a car across state lines might be impossible, unless that car meets your particular state's requirements.

This is not as far fetched as it may sound. California already requires stricter pollution controls as compared to the other 49 states. It doesn't take too much vision to imagine let loose, state governments run amok with well intentioned but poorly thought out laws. The Florida legislature wanted exhaust pipes of cars to have a minimum exit height of 32&quot;. This was supposed to help in air pollution, but was nothing more than a dumb idea. It was only prevented from becoming state law by the DOT, the federal one. There are numerous other laws states produce that are as onerous as any the feds produce, maybe more. Georgia's anti-sodomy laws are one example. Good ole conservative values being enforced in your bedroom......

I'm tired, but I just cannot believe people are so naive to think that the Civil war was never fought........because it did already settle this issue. Strong states rights and a weak federal government vs. weak states and a strong centralized federal government. But I suppose it's too attractive to rail against something big, especially when one knows it will not disappear, today or tomorrow.

The fact remains this country has had and will have a strong federal government because sometimes things run better with some centralized control and organization.

I know.....privatize everything........that always seems to be the answer bandied around these days. Sometimes it makes sense, but in many cases it doesn't. I would prefer the regulations of the FDS, for example, to continue to assure our food safety. Some say privatize this function and have each state do it. I shudder to think that the same care devoted to making tires (Firestone) or cars (Ford and the exploding Pinto) or properly disposing of toxic waste (Love Canal) would be given to food inspection by a private company. As I remember it, the function of a private company is to make a profit, nothing else. And most companies will do the most to maximize their profits...and will cut expenses to the bone, no matter what.

And to the surprise of many, most companies would love to control their employees' lives......much like was done at the turn of the 20th century. Ford, for instance, had strict requirements for employment......signing pledges for no drinking, etc. Of course, this was before the advent of labor unions, unions that fought for fair treatment of workers, decent hours, and produced the beginnings of the benefits we have today. Now imagine the arm of the federal government being removed, the states having to take up the inspection and regulation of the workplaces.......a nightmare waiting to be started.

Well, it's late and I'm tired. I jsut still am amazed that people chase after pipe dreams, such as the Libertarian party. If the energy that they put into decrying the size of government and its evils were spent trying to produce somethign constructive, maybe some changes would happen. But tilting at windmills is just that, an exercise in futility. I guess it is easier to stand around criticizing instead of getting ut and doing something, but that's jsut some people's way. C'est la vie. :)
 

LIBERTYorDEATH

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
350
0
0
your way must be to just accept that which is dictated to you. children are the same way, so you have company.

I do produce something useful...income. It means my wife and I are not a burden on any other living being, and I damn well respect the same from others. I believe in meritocracy, if you can not hack life on your own abilities, well i think scrooge said it best..&quot;let them die and decrease the surplus population&quot;. Taxing the income of anyone for the good of anyone else or the country as a whole, is evil. I can not keep thinking of new and interesting ways to be polite to the folks who think we live for some &quot;communal good&quot; but I for one live for myself and I do not give a damn for those who will not support themselves. Those of you with softer hearts and softer minds, be my guest to support them.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Hell yeah, slash the hell out of it! Once a new department or program is added, you can NEVER get rid of it! It's time to show how it's done.

And I sure as hell don't see why &quot;The States&quot; need to pick up the slack on a program or department that wasn't needed in the first place. Damn, if we get rid of the Federal Office of Cloud Counting I sure as hell don't want my state to take up the cause! :|

Social Security has got to be the best example of Federal program run awry. Somebody ought to grow some balls and fix that nightmare before it gets worse.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
Libertariansm sux bad.

We had it for decades way back and it sucked then.

Let's stop trying to live in a past age before there was a middle class.

Kids whining about economics and government who base their whole opinions on what they read here or what they see on the daily news without reading and understanding history....just irritates me.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
<<I do produce something useful...income. It means my wife and I are not a burden on any other living being, and I damn well respect the same from others. I believe in meritocracy, if you can not hack life on your own abilities, well i think scrooge said it best..&quot;let them die and decrease the surplus population&quot;. Taxing the income of anyone for the good of anyone else or the country as a whole, is evil. I can not keep thinking of new and interesting ways to be polite to the folks who think we live for some &quot;communal good&quot; but I for one live for myself and I do not give a damn for those who will not support themselves. Those of you with softer hearts and softer minds, be my guest to support them.>>

There are two kinds of Libertarian's, Extremely intelligent people that believe a utopian society can be constructed on the goodwill of men and Dumbasses that don't have a clue about anything and just want everyone to leave them alone and die. You fall into the latter category.

You don't have the slightest clue why ANY of those federal departments exist or why they are needed because you are ignorant of history. Your opinions have no value because you don't have the knowledge to make informed or intelligent decisions.

And for the record I voted for Browne in the last election, but given the position where the Libertarian's would win a large federal office I would vote against them. They serve as a protest vote for less government at less intrusive laws but frankly we will never live in a utopian society and anarchy where the person with the biggest guns rule the roost isn't for me.

<<And I sure as hell don't see why &quot;The States&quot; need to pick up the slack on a program or department that wasn't needed in the first place. Damn, if we get rid of the Federal Office of Cloud Counting I sure as hell don't want my state to take up the cause!>>

Skinflint,

And just what programs aren't needed? I'm assuming when you say the cloud counting office you are reffering to the national weather service? You are aware that their hurricane and tornado warnings have probably saved 100's of thousands of lives? Not to mention their weather reports are responsible for the safe operation of nearly every airport in the US.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
I wasn't refering to any office at all. I had no idea a cloud counting office could be tied to a real world government office, but I should have known. Maybe we should just tackle one at a time here.

I'll start with the U.S. Department of Education. However did we live without it before 1979? :Q

Buh-Bye :p
 

LIBERTYorDEATH

Senior member
Feb 28, 2001
350
0
0
I do simply want to be left alone, and excercise my right of free association. However, I do have an extreme insight into what makes life worth living, and believe me it is not security. If it is, why don't you go ask to be locked up in solitary confinement at horshoe bay federal prison. The ultimate security!

Off with you, little penguin.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
The role of government should be EXTREMELY limited -- there is only a role for government where a free market mechanism either does not or cannot function properly.

We have somehow grown to believe the fallacy that we &quot;need&quot; all these big programs to thrive. It's BS. We don't &quot;need&quot; most federal programs, but there is a need for certain limited programs.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
<<I do simply want to be left alone, and excercise my right of free association. However, I do have an extreme insight into what makes life worth living, and believe me it is not security. If it is, why don't you go ask to be locked up in solitary confinement at horshoe bay federal prison. The ultimate security!>>

So you are saying of course that you want to live in a country where you have to defend your pot crop with some big guns and you don't get much sleep because you are always out there guarding it? See your problem is you DON'T understand actual Libratarain phillopshy enough to know how their system would work. You are more than likely one of those idiots that joined the party because you wanna smoke a joint. People like you DAMAGE their movement because you have a complete lack of understanding of exactly what being Libratarian is.

<<We have somehow grown to believe the fallacy that we &quot;need&quot; all these big programs to thrive. It's BS. We don't &quot;need&quot; most federal programs, but there is a need for certain limited programs.>>

And you are well versed enough in the mission of federal agencies and why they were created that you can make that statement? Bullsh!t, another whiney little twit with a complete lack of education in history and not enough sense to know when to keep his mouth shut.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
The federal government is far, far too large and it keeps growing under Ds and Rs. I've always felt as it grows in size we lose freedoms and gain very little in &quot;benefits&quot;. Waste, bloat, inefficiency, zero accountability, failures, all add up to lost tax dollars.

Just taking agriculture...I've heard the number of farmers nowaways is a mere fraction of what it was just 10 years ago. yet the Dept. of Agriculture is probably the same size it's always been. Does it need to be that large? No. Eliminate it altoghter? No. What to do then? Shrink it, eliminate inefficiencies and ferret out mismanagement. Pretty standard, really.

This is just one example. Streamline every federal program you can't eliminate, add term limits for all Sens. and Reps, get the feds noses out of our personal lives, lower taxes to constiutional mandates and you'll see citizen trust in government skyrocket, participation in politics renew itself and a better country overall.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
You lost me completely when you proposed getting rid of the FDA. The US is envied all over the world for the quality of healthcare available and the F&amp;DA is a huge reason why. You say that you don't put anything into your body except what you approve? Well, I hope you're an expert on these matters because without an impartial agency like the F&amp;DA certiying the safety of drugs, you'll have to know it well.

I'd love to know your transition plan to get rid of the FAA. Shall we just let the planes slam into each other until another system works itself out?

I feel that government exists to enforce the rule of law that protects the weak against the strong. Do I feel that you can have too much government? Yes I do. Do I think the Libertarians are kooks on the far fringe of politics (the Green Party which is for much, much more government seriously outdrew the Libertarians this year, for example)? Yes, I do, and you're a perfect example.

Michael
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
<<Just taking agriculture...I've heard the number of farmers nowaways is a mere fraction of what it was just 10 years ago. yet the Dept. of Agriculture is probably the same size it's always been. Does it need to be that large? No. Eliminate it altoghter? No. What to do then? Shrink it, eliminate inefficiencies and ferret out mismanagement. Pretty standard, really.>>

You have NO idea what the role and responsbility of the DOA is. Absolutely none. You sit here and spout things like lets get rid of the DOA cause I'm not a farmer and farming isn't important anymore. Let me let you in on a little secret, you eat food. The DOA is responsible for the food saftey in this country. They do things like tell farmers they can't use human waste (night soil) to fertalize crops for human consumption and they do inspections to ensure compliance with that rule. They are also responsible for the meat inspection in this country to make sure YOU aren't being sold rotten meat. They are also responsible for inspection of canning facilities to make sure rats don't end up in your canned food. The DOA is responsible for food safety, you wanna grow all your own food or get food poisoning once a week? Don't be stupid.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
rahvin, I thought that the USDA did most of the quality assurance in packing facilities and canning plants? Are you using DOA and USDA interchangeably?

I know that the USDA is responsible for setting up RDA's, but I thought they also did the food inspections as well.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
vi_edit:

USDA stands for US Department of Agriculture.
DOA stands for Department of Agriculture.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
heh :)

That's why I asked if you were using them interchangeably :p
 

Pennstate

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
3,211
0
0
All you Libertarian whiners should STFU. You have your own fusk'd up idea of a government. Fortunately, Overwhelming majority of Americans disagree wth your idea of government. I would like my tax money back, but in forms of good government and better education, and better drug and food safety. If you want anarchy, move to Somolia.