There Is "Too Much Government" & "Too Much Spending" Right?
Options
DarcSkies777
Members Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭
........SO WHAT PROGRAMS DO WE CUT?
1. Dont say, "cut wasteful spending" because waste to you is a life saving program to somebody in Hicksville, Nebraska. And also I heard (forgot where I heard it) wasteful spending only accounts for a couple billion dollars annually and wouldnt decrease our deficiet by much anyway.
2. Do we get rid of the IRS & Public Schools like Ron Paul wants? What effect would that have?
I always hear, "there is too much government" and I actually agree. But what exactly do we stop spending on? What programs should we cut?
1. Dont say, "cut wasteful spending" because waste to you is a life saving program to somebody in Hicksville, Nebraska. And also I heard (forgot where I heard it) wasteful spending only accounts for a couple billion dollars annually and wouldnt decrease our deficiet by much anyway.
2. Do we get rid of the IRS & Public Schools like Ron Paul wants? What effect would that have?
I always hear, "there is too much government" and I actually agree. But what exactly do we stop spending on? What programs should we cut?
Comments
-
Oh....I think we can defiantly cut defense spending. But we already did earlier this year so....there's that.
-
My main issue is the War On Drugs, we need to cut all that spending, if not at least use the money in a more useful way. We are paying for it, then when people are arrested for being addicts, we ship them to jail for a few months all expenses paid, they get out and repeat. At least send them to rehab so a few will clean up. IMO though we just need to do away with the whole war on drugs, create clinics that will supply free drugs to those severly addicted (IE Amsterdam has clinics where Heroin addicts can go get shot up in a clean enviorment also stopping alot of diseases caused by Heroin use), Allow weed to be sold legally through special stores, stop sending users to jail. All kind of things can be beneficial from it ending. We would create alot more jobs and revenue by setting up clinics and leagalizing less harmful drugs.
Im also all for private police forces, it would stop racial slayings, crooked cops, etc.. but it will cut back. You get a few groups to police who arent racist and it will show a dramatic difference.
On the flip though Id love to see more spending when we are a little more stable on better power sources, it will cost a good bit but the long term effect of using, hydropower, windpower, and solar power even if only to a couple million would have such a great effect on the Earth and the economy. -
You called it, Defense should be #1...I mean seriously, we got enough nukes, and even with all the Iran fear-mongering in the media I don't see any serious threat on the horizon, its all about natural resources now.DarcSkies777 wrote: »Oh....I think we can defiantly cut defense spending. But we already did earlier this year so....there's that.
The public-school system is seriously flawed and needs to be junked but I dont know how that could be worked out properly
I would be willing to see a higher tax on alcohol and tobacco, make people pay more for their vices
The global policing ? needs to be cut way back theres no reason why we should have military bases in Finland, and Gaum...cut back on the overseas adventures.
and Im a cruel bastard Id cut foodstamps, welfare, and foreign aid to Israel as much as humanly possible without causing loss of life. -
You called it, Defense should be #1...I mean seriously, we got enough nukes, and even with all the Iran fear-mongering in the media I don't see any serious threat on the horizon, its all about natural resources now.
The public-school system is seriously flawed and needs to be junked but I dont know how that could be worked out properly
I would be willing to see a higher tax on alcohol and tobacco, make people pay more for their vices
The global policing ? needs to be cut way back theres no reason why we should have military bases in Finland, and Gaum...cut back on the overseas adventures.
and Im a cruel bastard Id cut foodstamps, welfare, and foreign aid to Israel as much as humanly possible without causing loss of life.
Agree with alot of this.. especially Defense.. we go overboard with the flexing of our muscles.. billion dollar jets.. FOH.. Intelligience is the most important aspect of defense.. You got mofos using old as soviet weapons and spare parts and ? like they the A team.. (and thats all it takes)while we are spending money on dumb ? . -
Let me make this real simple.....
"Cut Medicare" = "Wahhhh, they gon pull the plug on grandma"
"Cut Social Security" = "Wahhhh, don't cut my benefits"
"Cut Military Spending" = "Wahhhhh, you hate the troops" -
2. Do we get rid of the IRS & Public Schools like Ron Paul wants? What effect would that have?
Hell yeah, that's a start. The IRS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, and Im sure there are plent of other dept's that can go to. What people have understand that all these departs can either be (a) handled on a local or state level at a much cheaper price and with less bureaucracy or (b) be done away with all together. The Dept of Energy for example was created under Carter to reduce our dependence on Foreign oil...gee, that went well, ABOLISH THAT ? .
Since 2000 the government has doubled in size, has our income doubled? No, wages have remained flat. Well how can government continue to grow if it isnt taking in more money? They take the value of you money instead thats how. You have to understand the government taxes what it spends. We are spending a 1.60 for every dollar collected in taxes. So you say "? , tax the rich, they dont need it" Well lets think about this for a second. What does a rich person do with their money? Sure the spend it on some luxury goods, but the majority of people that qualify as rich got that way by being frugal and not indulging in conspicuous consumption. So lets say a guy made 1 mill in a year, , well 500k of that ? has already been taxed before it hits his had. Ok, so he still has 500k, thats still more money then most people have in the country right? But what does he do with that 500k? He buys some stuff for himself and he puts the rest in his savings account. "OH NO, THAT RICH ? HAS THE NERVE TO MAKE ALL THAT MONEY AND JUST STICK IN ACCOUNT, ? THAT?!!!" Well, actually, putting it in a savings account actually help the economy. Businesses need capital to grow, where does capital come from? Banks. How do banks get this capital? Through deposit savings accounts that are loaned out. You ever wonder why we are having a so called "job-less recovery"....its because the Government is taking all the capital from the private sector to finance it's enormous deficits. On top of that, America has the lowest savings rates in the industrial economies. NO SAVINGS + DEBT FINANCING = NO JOB GROWTH . We would be better off for that guy that made that million dollars to keep all his money, and save it, because that actually helps our economy grow. And instead of taxing what he earns, tax what he spends. So if he spends 200k on consumption, that is taxed. Instead of taxing what he earns, which actually destroys production and economic growth. Sure the government gets 500k from the guy but most of that money gets wasted. On top of that we would have much less poor people because our economy would be more fundamentally sound and government would be much less burdensome.
As far as Education, just because you abolish the Dept of Education doesnt mean education wont happen any more. It would just be controlled more on a state level. I advocate for the Sweden model, where the state would give vouchers for a student to go to whatever school, and the schools are built and ran by for-profit enterprises. YES, I SAID SWEDEN, SOCIALIST SWEDEN HAS FIGURED OUT THAT FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION WORKS BETTER THAN GOVT CONTROLLED EDUCATION. These students are getting top notch education and at less the cost, because through free market competition, prices go down while quality goes up. No more huge govt education bureaucracy that waists money and fails our children.
Department of Defense??? That ? should be cut down dramatically. First of all we have too many bases of operations in too many damn countries. Those troops need to come home. We have enough nukes, we have tech that people dont even think is possible, and we are involved in to much ? . In fact, the majority of the ? we start because we intervened in the first place.
NO CORPORATE WELFARE!!!!
Also, Social Security should be abolished. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR OLD PEOPLE, THEY WILL STARVE. Well, the people that really need it, we have to help them. But their are plenty of old rich people that don't need those checks. The system is a ponzi scheme and was doomed to failure from the get go. People should be able to save their money how they want, and with no income or payroll tax, they would have the money on hand to save (and remember, savings help the economy grow so everyone will benefit).
I can go on for hours ....give me a dept and I will give you a solution. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Department of Energy
They manage America's nuclear resources. Probably best to keep that responsibility at the Federal level, eh? -
Swiffness! wrote: »They manage America's nuclear resources. Probably best to keep that responsibility at the Federal level, eh?
Why are they managing our nuclear resources? Why does this not fall under Dept of Defense? -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Department of Defense
Remember what happened to Defense Spending during the Cold War?
Wait til the U.S-China Cold War gets poppin.
"Congressman X voted to CUT MILITARY SPENDING, at a time when the Chinese threat is growing dramatically! Vote for security - Vote for Congressman Y."
Have a nice day. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Remember what happened to Defense Spending during the Cold War?
Wait til the U.S-China Cold War gets poppin.
"Congressman X voted to CUT MILITARY SPENDING, at a time when the Chinese threat is growing dramatically! Vote for security - Vote for Congressman Y."
Have a nice day.
Go see what's going on in the Rand Paul vs. Trey Grayson Senate campaign in Kentucky. Trey (neo-con) pulled out all the stops, ? Cheney called a meeting and has all the neo-cons flying in to Kentucky to fear monger. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Why are they managing our nuclear resources? Why does this not fall under Dept of Defense?
According to Mr. Wikipedia:
In the United States, all nuclear weapons deployed by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) are actually on loan to DoD from the DOE/NNSA,[5] which has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons. NNSA in turn uses contractors to carry out its responsibilities at the following government owned sites:
Design of the nuclear components of the weapon: Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Engineering of the weapon systems: Sandia National Laboratory
Manufacturing of key components: Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Kansas City Plant, and Y-12 National Security Complex
Testing: Nevada Test Site
Final weapon/warhead assembling/dismantling: Pantex
Also, they cover nuclear power. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Let me make this real simple.....
"Cut Medicare" = "Wahhhh, they gon pull the plug on grandma"
"Cut Social Security" = "Wahhhh, don't cut my benefits"
"Cut Military Spending" = "Wahhhhh, you hate the troops"
LOL At the EPA getting treated like a red headed step child..... -
Swiffness! wrote: »According to Mr. Wikipedia:
In the United States, all nuclear weapons deployed by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) are actually on loan to DoD from the DOE/NNSA,[5] which has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons. NNSA in turn uses contractors to carry out its responsibilities at the following government owned sites:
Design of the nuclear components of the weapon: Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Engineering of the weapon systems: Sandia National Laboratory
Manufacturing of key components: Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Kansas City Plant, and Y-12 National Security Complex
Testing: Nevada Test Site
Final weapon/warhead assembling/dismantling: Pantex
Also, they cover nuclear power.
More stupid government decisions, the part of the DOE that handle's NUCLEAR WEAPONS should be moved under the DOD umberella. The rest of the ? should abolished. Let private companies and states handle nuclear power and the EPA handle Nuclear waste. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Go see what's going on in the Rand Paul vs. Trey Grayson Senate campaign in Kentucky. Trey (neo-con) pulled out all the stops, ? Cheney called a meeting and has all the neo-cons flying in to Kentucky to fear monger.
Rand's been deftly tip-toeing around the Defense Spending issue. The "National Defense" section of his site is very small - carefully touching the "keep us safe" bases - but it doesn't mention spending or wars. When you read it, it feels like the same kind of half-hearted effort Republicans usually reserve for "African American issues" LOL
And yet he still gets love from Fox & Co. Like I said - deftly -
Swiffness! wrote: »Rand's been deftly tip-toeing around the Defense Spending issue. The "National Defense" section of his site is very small - carefully touching the "keep us safe" bases - but it doesn't mention spending or wars. When you read it, it feels like the same kind of half-hearted effort Republicans usually reserve for "African American issues" LOL
And yet he still gets love from Fox & Co. Like I said - deftly
Yeah, he got a few of his libertarian supporters riled up with that, but they have to understand.....the man is trying to win an election. Some people just cant fathom an America that isn't policing the entire ? world. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »More stupid government decisions, the part of the DOE that handle's NUCLEAR WEAPONS should be moved under the DOD umberella. The rest of the ? should abolished. Let private companies and states handle nuclear power and the EPA handle Nuclear waste.
Probably will happen someday. Originally there was 2 agencies, one for weapons, one for power. I'd have no problem with letting the DOD handle da nukes full time. Hell, I'd hand nuclear power responsibilities and the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture over to the Department of the Interior; make that Secretary job worth having for a change.
Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs are only separate departments for crass political reasons. Merge them with HUD into a new department. Department of Education was originally part of HHS anyway, so there ya go.
Homeland Security is as ? as Ron Paul said it was. Rename it the Crisis Management Agency, merge it with wack-ass FEMA and fold it into DoJ.
Commerce and Labor used to be one department. LBJ actually argued for re-uniting them. That's right, L B MUTHAPHUKKIN J. "He argued that the two departments had similar goals and that they would have more efficient channels of communication in a single department. However, Congress never acted on it." C'est la vie, as the French say. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Yeah, he got a few of his libertarian supporters riled up with that, but they have to understand.....the man is trying to win an election. Some people just cant fathom an America that isn't policing the entire ? world.
Some people can't fathom that what's "right" isn't always practical at the moment. I have this argument all the time @ DailyKos with people who can't figure out why Obama hasn't had Bush n Cheney arrested. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Probably will happen someday. Originally there was 2 agencies, one for weapons, one for power. I'd have no problem with letting the DOD handle da nukes full time. Hell, I'd hand nuclear power responsibilities and the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture over to the Department of the Interior; make that Secretary job worth having for a change.
Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs are only separate departments for crass political reasons. Merge them with HUD into a new department. Department of Education was originally part of HHS anyway, so there ya go.
Homeland Security is as ? as Ron Paul said it was. Rename it the Crisis Management Agency, merge it with wack-ass FEMA and fold it into DoJ.
Commerce and Labor used to be one department. LBJ actually argued for re-uniting them. That's right, L B MUTHAPHUKKIN J. "He argued that the two departments had similar goals and that they would have more efficient channels of communication in a single department. However, Congress never acted on it." C'est la vie, as the French say.
Department of Labor = Abolish
Homeland = Abolish
Department of Commece = ......ABOLISH
Seriously, why do we need them? Government should have no business in commerce and no business in labor. -
Swiffness! wrote: »Some people can't fathom that what's "right" isn't always practical at the moment. I have this argument all the time @ DailyKos with people who can't figure out why Obama hasn't had Bush n Cheney arrested.
? it, arrest them ? .
Nah....I get it. Same reason Obama couldn'y have the single payer system yet, sometime you have to be pragmatic.
But when the ? hits the fan, pragmatism goes out the window. That's why you have to prepare yourself.
*click clack* -
Oh yeah, at the local level we need less government involvement in victimless crimes such as prostitution, seatbelt laws & drug use.
The arguments against prostitution are dumb: "what about the man cheating on his wife and bringing STDs home?" Like men wouldn't cheat regardless. Like most STDs are contracted from street hookers smh
Drugs are only dangerous to those who use them and sell them. If your son/daughter is on drugs thats YOUR family's problem not the government. Get these ? heads out of jail. As for people robbing for drug money...stop discriminating against ex-felons and give them jobs to support their habit.
Seatbelt Laws: If you need the local legislature to tell you to put on your seatbelt you're too stupid to live. Cities need to stop trying to make money off ? that doesn't affect anybody else but the muthafukka flying through the windshield. -
DarcSkies777 wrote: »Oh yeah, at the local level we need less government involvement in victimless crimes such as prostitution, seatbelt laws & drug use.
The arguments against prostitution are dumb: "what about the man cheating on his wife and bringing STDs home?" Like men wouldn't cheat regardless. Like most STDs are contracted from street hookers smh
Drugs are only dangerous to those who use them and sell them. If your son/daughter is on drugs thats YOUR family's problem not the government. Get these ? heads out of jail. As for people robbing for drug money...stop discriminating against ex-felons and give them jobs to support their habit.
Seatbelt Laws: If you need the local legislature to tell you to put on your seatbelt you're too stupid to live. Cities need to stop trying to make money off ? that doesn't affect anybody else but the muthafukka flying through the windshield.
You really need to reconsider that, parents on them basically ? their kids whole childhood up, a good bit of kids with addicted parents end up with ? up lives, so many innocent people die over drug wars, kidnappings, mistaken identity, family affiliation. Drugs are dangerous to anyone around the area they are. If you got 2 big dealers in your neighborhood you are in harms way. Mexicans right now are ? everyone up in their drug war.
I think there needs to be a special group of work for felons and drug addicts. You can't put those two groups into a normal working enviorment and not have trouble. If someone ? up do they deserve a second chance yea, but somethings dont deserve second chances, if your convicted of ? , child molestation, or murder ? you. If you got more than one felony ? you, you should have thought a little better. -
Good point.ThaChozenWun wrote: »You really need to reconsider that, parents on them basically ? their kids whole childhood up, a good bit of kids with addicted parents end up with ? up lives, so many innocent people die over drug wars, kidnappings, mistaken identity, family affiliation. Drugs are dangerous to anyone around the area they are. If you got 2 big dealers in your neighborhood you are in harms way. Mexicans right now are ? everyone up in their drug war.
Well the murder, ? ? goes without saying. And I agree on the two felonies thing. HOWEVER, if you are unable to find work and all you know is criminal activity it is intellectually dishonest to just say "find a job" because once you got a felony your ass is grass unless you start your own biz.I think there needs to be a special group of work for felons and drug addicts. You can't put those two groups into a normal working enviorment and not have trouble. If someone ? up do they deserve a second chance yea, but somethings dont deserve second chances, if your convicted of ? , child molestation, or murder ? you. If you got more than one felony ? you, you should have thought a little better. -
DarcSkies777 wrote: »Oh yeah, at the local level we need less government involvement in victimless crimes such as prostitution, seatbelt laws & drug use.
The arguments against prostitution are dumb: "what about the man cheating on his wife and bringing STDs home?" Like men wouldn't cheat regardless. Like most STDs are contracted from street hookers smh
Drugs are only dangerous to those who use them and sell them. If your son/daughter is on drugs thats YOUR family's problem not the government. Get these ? heads out of jail. As for people robbing for drug money...stop discriminating against ex-felons and give them jobs to support their habit.
Seatbelt Laws: If you need the local legislature to tell you to put on your seatbelt you're too stupid to live. Cities need to stop trying to make money off ? that doesn't affect anybody else but the muthafukka flying through the windshield.
co ? sign -
well, if a program directly benefits me, it CAN'T be wasteful. so nothing like that, please.DarcSkies777 wrote: »........SO WHAT PROGRAMS DO WE CUT?
this will just never happen.DarcSkies777 wrote: »2. Do we get rid of the IRS & Public Schools like Ron Paul wants? What effect would that have?
we don't need to cut it necessarily, we just need to redirect it, legalize some stuff and tax the living hell out of it, ease back on all the pointless incarceration, etc, etc.ThaChozenWun wrote: »My main issue is the War On Drugs, we need to cut all that spending, if not at least use the money in a more useful way.
i have to say i don't see how it would stop that stuff at all, which isn't meant to be as negative as it sounds. i just don't see it happening that easily.ThaChozenWun wrote: »Im also all for private police forces, it would stop racial slayings, crooked cops, etc.
good lord, how much higher can the tax on tobacco be?I would be willing to see a higher tax on alcohol and tobacco, make people pay more for their vices
you don't even have to worry about that, because you can't cut the spending because the jobs are NEEDED somewhere.Swiffness! wrote: »Congressman X voted to CUT MILITARY SPENDING, at a time when the Chinese threat is growing dramatically! Vote for security - Vote for Congressman Y."
