What government agencies should be targeted for spending cuts

  • 140 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6255 posts) -

Cut a little bit of everything.

Take %20 off the top in every department.

#52 Posted by megam (457 posts) -
I'd like to see Medicare able to bargain for drug prices, Social Security reformed to means test and the income cap removed, and defense cut to Clinton levels. Defense is not a jobs program. Stop treating it like one. Military contractors are, according to the Pentagon, increasingly unaffordable. Furthermore, defense spending is one of the least effective ways to create jobs according to this. That money would be better spent elsewhere (like infrastructure investment or a real jobs program).
#53 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13099 posts) -

That money would be better spent elsewhere (like infrastructure investment or a real jobs program).megam

If it doesn't affect policy makers, it's not a big deal.

Like, for example, there was a small bridge out this way that really really really needed some work. It languished for years until a city council member moved and had to cross that bridge every day.

It got fixed that summer.

#54 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.
#55 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.Laihendi
So basically forgo all the things that makes us the United States?

#56 Posted by comp_atkins (31476 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] True. Bush Jr. inherited a mild recession. Nowhere near as deep as the one Obama inherited from Bush Jr.  But he did inherit an economy that had mildly scaled back from the peek years under Clinton. (Which, I'll note, Clinton passed tax increases on the rich and had that growth anyway.) But this whole thing is a separate discussion. We're talking about the deficit. And, again, if 80% of the government spending is on entitlements, defense, social safety net and interest on the debt...if you want to fix the deficit you focus on where 4/5ths of the spending is, not the remaining "misc" category. Fixing the deficit: 1. Cutting defense 2. Cutting entitlements 3. Raising taxes That's the ballgame. Can argue which of those three to emphasize to which extent, but some combo of those three is the framework.

what's interesting is the last 4 recessions, 81, 90, 01, and 07 have been the "flattest" ones in the group. in the last 30 years we haven't been seeing as sharp a recovery as we used to....

Completely wild ass guess here, but I think that is based on the overall SIZE of the economy. Dumb metaphor time: bigger cars have larger turning radius. The bigger something is, the more force required to make it change direction. Many economists argued that the stimulus was too small relative to our economy's size. I tend to agree with that assessment, but I also think it was the largest one likely to pass.

yeah, i don't know if it's a statement based on the size of the economy or the way recoveries work lately... jobs just aren't recovered as quickly.. people are laid off and the people left just have to pick up slack.. recovery is more an increase in productivity vs. an increase in employment. don't know though. i'm no economist :P
#57 Posted by GreySeal9 (24500 posts) -

I'm so glad that people like Laihendi are pretty much irrelevant in the political process.

#58 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.Laihendi
But then what will you do when mommy and daddy aren't around?
#59 Posted by Aljosa23 (25131 posts) -

Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.Laihendi
LMAO

#60 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

I'm so glad that people like Laihendi are pretty much irrelevant in the political process.

GreySeal9

It's sad because some of his positions are actualy viable. The war on drugs for example needs to end, but he's an ideologue with no room for compromise...

#61 Posted by Blue-Sky (10333 posts) -

Defense spending could be cut by half and it still wouldn't dent the deficit, you would also be putting a lot of people out of work instantly.

The military employees over 2 million people directly and has contracts with US companies that employ hundreds of thousands, if not millions more. It's not like that money is just being thrown away into experimental weapons programs that will never get used.

Wasdie

So Government spending is creating jobs?

#62 Posted by one_plum (6358 posts) -

Maybe there will be less cases of violence and shootings that we keep hearing about if elementary and secondary education were taken more seriously.

#63 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.Yusuke420

So basically forgo all the things that makes us the United States?

If you have ever studied American history at all then you should know that these suggested changes would basically take us back to being the country the founding fathers created, back to being what it was before it became infested with socialists. Socialism is the aberration in American history, not individualism.
#64 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.Aljosa23

LMAO

Deficits would not be a problem if these changes were implemented. You can laugh but that doesn't change the fact that the US government simply can't afford all of the responsibilities that it assumes for itself, regardless of ethical considerations.
#65 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

If you have ever studied American history at all then you should know that these suggested changes would basically take us back to being the country the founding fathers created, back to being what it was before it became infested with socialists. Socialism is the aberration in American history, not individualism.Laihendi
hahahaha

what does any of this even mean

You don't seem to really understand American history

#66 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you have ever studied American history at all then you should know that these suggested changes would basically take us back to being the country the founding fathers created, back to being what it was before it became infested with socialists. Socialism is the aberration in American history, not individualism.-Sun_Tzu-

hahahaha

what does any of this even mean

You don't seem to really understand American history

Please tell me which of the founding fathers advocated massive military budgets, socialized healthcare, foreign aid, state monopolies on infrastructure and land ownership, strict drug regulation, and closed borders. Please read a history book, and then tell me.
#67 Posted by SUD123456 (4488 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you have ever studied American history at all then you should know that these suggested changes would basically take us back to being the country the founding fathers created, back to being what it was before it became infested with socialists. Socialism is the aberration in American history, not individualism.Laihendi

hahahaha

what does any of this even mean

You don't seem to really understand American history

Please tell me which of the founding fathers advocated massive military budgets, socialized healthcare, foreign aid, state monopolies on infrastructure and land ownership, strict drug regulation, and closed borders. Please read a history book, and then tell me.

Definately not the ones who lived in an agrarian society, with an uneducated population that couldn't read or write, lived in shacks, spent a great deal of their time in the dark, bought and sold slaves, bathed occasionally, had a much lower life expectancy, a medical care system that peaked at sawing off limbs and handing out herbs, received foreign aid, and denied the right to vote to more than 50% of the adult population.

#68 Posted by outworld222 (2429 posts) -

Whatever is needed to start getting the deficit going the other way.

#69 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you have ever studied American history at all then you should know that these suggested changes would basically take us back to being the country the founding fathers created, back to being what it was before it became infested with socialists. Socialism is the aberration in American history, not individualism.Laihendi

hahahaha

what does any of this even mean

You don't seem to really understand American history

Please tell me which of the founding fathers advocated massive military budgets, socialized healthcare, foreign aid, state monopolies on infrastructure and land ownership, strict drug regulation, and closed borders. Please read a history book, and then tell me.

You really seemed to have missed the point, but to answer your question - I doubt Alexander Hamilton would have much of a problem with things like a large military budget, large-scale government investment in infrastructure, and closed borders and Thomas Paine certainly would've supported universal healthcare.

But the reason why your post didn't make any sense was because in the country that the "founding fathers created" there wasn't an infestation of socialists merely because there was no infestation of capitalists at the time. Socialism - being a reaction to capitalism - couldn't and didn't exist in the late 18th century. The country that the founding fathers lived in was half mercantile/half agrarian.

#70 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
Maybe I'm a commie, pinko bastard...but while I'm grateful to the Founding Fathers for being progressive for their time period, I couldn't give a sh1t what their views of modern society would be because they'd be relics by modern society's standards. The Magna fvcking Carta was an astonishing achievement for it's time period. But I imagine if you asked the writers whether or not the rights that it guaranteed to the nobility should be extended to us dirty peasants they'd probably have us publicly flogged. Looking for guidance from centuries ago can only take you so far. The world changes.
#71 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

I still don't see why we don't cut the military.

There's no point in soldiers anymore it's 2013. Lets go back to the cold war, and use deterrence theory-- no one ever gets hurt(at least historically).

#72 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13099 posts) -

If you have ever studied American history at all then you should know that these suggested changes would basically take us back to being the country the founding fathers created, back to being what it was before it became infested with socialists. Socialism is the aberration in American history, not individualism.Laihendi

"We the people" is a very socialst statement. Do you even understand what socialism is?

And we are not the agrarian society we were 200+ years ago.

#73 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

Sorry TC, but I have no respect for someone who wants to cut something that is so necessary and also underfunded at so many levels, education.

You aren't serious about spending cuts, you are just repeating GOP talking points.

#74 Posted by GreySeal9 (24500 posts) -

Sorry TC, but I have no respect for someone who wants to cut something that is so necessary and also underfunded at so many levels, education.

You aren't serious about spending cuts, you are just repeating GOP talking points.

jimkabrhel

Pretty much.

#75 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] hahahaha

what does any of this even mean

You don't seem to really understand American history

-Sun_Tzu-

Please tell me which of the founding fathers advocated massive military budgets, socialized healthcare, foreign aid, state monopolies on infrastructure and land ownership, strict drug regulation, and closed borders. Please read a history book, and then tell me.

You really seemed to have missed the point, but to answer your question - I doubt Alexander Hamilton would have much of a problem with things like a large military budget, large-scale government investment in infrastructure, and closed borders and Thomas Paine certainly would've supported universal healthcare.

But the reason why your post didn't make any sense was because in the country that the "founding fathers created" there wasn't an infestation of socialists merely because there was no infestation of capitalists at the time. Socialism - being a reaction to capitalism - couldn't and didn't exist in the late 18th century. The country that the founding fathers lived in was half mercantile/half agrarian.

Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.
#76 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

Sorry TC, but I have no respect for someone who wants to cut something that is so necessary and also underfunded at so many levels, education.

You aren't serious about spending cuts, you are just repeating GOP talking points.

jimkabrhel
Everybody thinks their thing is underfunded. It does not surprise me at all that a professional teacher (please correct me if I am mistaken) would think education is underfunded.
#77 Posted by BossPerson (9475 posts) -

Your #1 thing is to cut education? LOL

Aljosa23
you expect better from a republican?
#78 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Please tell me which of the founding fathers advocated massive military budgets, socialized healthcare, foreign aid, state monopolies on infrastructure and land ownership, strict drug regulation, and closed borders. Please read a history book, and then tell me.Laihendi

You really seemed to have missed the point, but to answer your question - I doubt Alexander Hamilton would have much of a problem with things like a large military budget, large-scale government investment in infrastructure, and closed borders and Thomas Paine certainly would've supported universal healthcare.

But the reason why your post didn't make any sense was because in the country that the "founding fathers created" there wasn't an infestation of socialists merely because there was no infestation of capitalists at the time. Socialism - being a reaction to capitalism - couldn't and didn't exist in the late 18th century. The country that the founding fathers lived in was half mercantile/half agrarian.

Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.

Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements?
#79 Posted by jeremiah06 (7169 posts) -
Tc... You're either an idiot in general or severely unqualified to discuss this subject...
#80 Posted by SUD123456 (4488 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You really seemed to have missed the point, but to answer your question - I doubt Alexander Hamilton would have much of a problem with things like a large military budget, large-scale government investment in infrastructure, and closed borders and Thomas Paine certainly would've supported universal healthcare.

But the reason why your post didn't make any sense was because in the country that the "founding fathers created" there wasn't an infestation of socialists merely because there was no infestation of capitalists at the time. Socialism - being a reaction to capitalism - couldn't and didn't exist in the late 18th century. The country that the founding fathers lived in was half mercantile/half agrarian.

-Sun_Tzu-

Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.

Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements?

LOL. So true.

#81 Posted by osirisx3 (1819 posts) -

get out of japan korea europe and so on

i just saved you 100s of billions.

#82 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You really seemed to have missed the point, but to answer your question - I doubt Alexander Hamilton would have much of a problem with things like a large military budget, large-scale government investment in infrastructure, and closed borders and Thomas Paine certainly would've supported universal healthcare.

But the reason why your post didn't make any sense was because in the country that the "founding fathers created" there wasn't an infestation of socialists merely because there was no infestation of capitalists at the time. Socialism - being a reaction to capitalism - couldn't and didn't exist in the late 18th century. The country that the founding fathers lived in was half mercantile/half agrarian.

-Sun_Tzu-
Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.

Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements?

The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.
#83 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.Laihendi
Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements?

The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.

It must be easy to argue something when you aren't restrained by reality.

#84 Posted by Aljosa23 (25131 posts) -

The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.Laihendi
haha

you mean except if youre black and non-christian?

#85 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements? -Sun_Tzu-

The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.

It must be easy to argue something when you aren't restrained by reality.

Please explain what is unrealistic about what I am saying. Please substantiate your claims, as I have substantiated my own.
#86 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.

Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements?

The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.

ahahahahaha
#87 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.Aljosa23

haha

you mean except if youre black and non-christian?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech. Obviously many of the founders were hypocrites and inconsistent with their principles with regards to slavery/racism. That has no bearing on the validity of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence.
#88 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.Laihendi

It must be easy to argue something when you aren't restrained by reality.

Please explain what is unrealistic about what I am saying. Please substantiate your claims, as I have substantiated my own.

Please, you haven't substantiated sh!t. You're just spewing diarrhea from your keyboard. What is the socialist school of thought that you cited that demonstrates that socialism "exists on the assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless"? Who is the socialist that ran on that platform?
#89 Posted by Aljosa23 (25131 posts) -

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech. Obviously many of the founders were hypocrites and inconsistent with their principles with regards to slavery/racism. That has no bearing on the validity of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence.Laihendi
Since they were hypocrites, why in the fvck would any sane person believe slave owners and traitors to be the end all be all in the modern day?

Also, I'm not well versed in early American history but I always learned that the states declared independence because of taxation without representation, not that nonsense you said.

#90 Posted by jeremiah06 (7169 posts) -
Reduce military spending, phase out all forms government welfare (including medicare, medicaid, and public education), end foreign aid, privatize all land and infrastructure, end the drug war, and stop guarding the borders from immigrants.Laihendi
We can't phase out education... The only reasonable answer is to raise taxes across the board and cut spending to defense and social security... I'd go a step further and say phase out ss all together personally but education and health should not get the axe... I mildly agree on your other points Im afraid to privatize land and feel that gov should build infrastructure...
#91 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.Laihendi

haha

you mean except if youre black and non-christian?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech. Obviously many of the founders were hypocrites and inconsistent with their principles with regards to slavery/racism. That has no bearing on the validity of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence.

In The Founding Father's defense, they had more important issues to worry about than equality, or discrimination. Running country, and setting up its infrastructure was their primary issue when forming the United States.
#92 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
I'm not well versed in early American history but I always learned that the states declared independence because of taxation without representation, not that nonsense you said.Aljosa23
Pretty much. The King(George III) started taxing everything for no reason, pretty much got started because of the British Stamp Act. England wanted to repress education, and the growth of the Colonist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765
#93 Posted by cmpepper23 (3256 posts) -

cut defense spending

#94 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech. Obviously many of the founders were hypocrites and inconsistent with their principles with regards to slavery/racism. That has no bearing on the validity of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence.Aljosa23

Since they were hypocrites, why in the fvck would any sane person believe slave owners and traitors to be the end all be all in the modern day?

Also, I'm not well versed in early American history but I always learned that the states declared independence because of taxation without representation, not that nonsense you said.

I am supporting the libertarian principles they advocated, not the actual founders themselves. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty separating an idea from the person expressing the idea, especially when it comes to the US founders. Also you clearly have not read the Declaration of Independence.
#95 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It must be easy to argue something when you aren't restrained by reality.-Sun_Tzu-
Please explain what is unrealistic about what I am saying. Please substantiate your claims, as I have substantiated my own.

Please, you haven't substantiated sh!t. You're just spewing diarrhea from your keyboard. What is the socialist school of thought that you cited that demonstrates that socialism "exists on the assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless"? Who is the socialist that ran on that platform?

A life believed to be inherently meaningful would not be sacrificed for anything. Socialism requires that each individual be sacrificed for "society", which inevitably means whoever holds authority over a given group of people (an example being the communist party in the USSR).
#96 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

]A life believed to be inherently meaningful would not be sacrificed for anything. Socialism requires that each individual be sacrificed for "society"Laihendi
What are you getting this from?

#97 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Sorry TC, but I have no respect for someone who wants to cut something that is so necessary and also underfunded at so many levels, education.

You aren't serious about spending cuts, you are just repeating GOP talking points.

Laihendi

Everybody thinks their thing is underfunded. It does not surprise me at all that a professional teacher (please correct me if I am mistaken) would think education is underfunded.

You are quite right, I am biased since I'm a college professor. However, there are many situations in this country that could be inproved through education. Poverty is one, and if there was less poverty, there would be less welfare, less need for gun control, etc. I would think that Republicans would consider such things of utmost importance. I don't know how pseudo-libertarians feel about it.

#98 Posted by Yusuke420 (2793 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Please explain what is unrealistic about what I am saying. Please substantiate your claims, as I have substantiated my own.Laihendi
Please, you haven't substantiated sh!t. You're just spewing diarrhea from your keyboard. What is the socialist school of thought that you cited that demonstrates that socialism "exists on the assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless"? Who is the socialist that ran on that platform?

A life believed to be inherently meaningful would not be sacrificed for anything. Socialism requires that each individual be sacrificed for "society", which inevitably means whoever holds authority over a given group of people (an example being the communist party in the USSR).

Now I have finally caught you, you JUST stated in your previous post that you can seperate an idea from the person that expresses that idea. If this is the case then why are you bashing socialism based off of poor execution of an idea, instead of the idea itself. You can't on one hand ignore personal failing and then with the side of your mouth bash ideas on that very same principle. This is the hieght of intelliectual ignorance or pure dishonesty on your part.

#99 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
klassic lai
#100 Posted by Aljosa23 (25131 posts) -

I am supporting the libertarian principles they advocated, not the actual founders themselves. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty separating an idea from the person expressing the idea, especially when it comes to the US founders. Also you clearly have not read the Declaration of Independence.Laihendi
How are the founding fathers libertarian? Didn't they have varied views? Even in the early years they were split up over how to run the country. But yeah, if an individual is a hypocrite and a bad person I'm not going to care about their ideas. Especially not a slave owner from the 1700s.

I have not read the Declaration of Independence but so what? Only reason they rebelled in the first place was because of taxation from the British.