If you could be President for a day and you were given the unlimited power to cut out ONE government-funded program entirely out of the budget, what would you cut out?
I'd kill the IRS and force another system of taxation.
In my opinion, most people do not realize how much is taken by taxes. Changing the scheme to make it painfully obvious would force changes in other areas. Many federal programs are good, but the funding has gotten way out of hand. So I would hesitate to cut the program entirely but would love to see some restrictions.
Hell, for that matter, I am pretty well informed and can not even start to list all the programs the federal government spends more than $50mil on. I bet the head of the GAO can't even do that. Several of them could probably just get the ax and no one would notice.
My preferred answer would be "everywhere." Stop social security NOW in its current form. Fund promise already made but STOP making new promises. Curtail Medicaid spending. Curtail the department of ag. Kill military pork spending (if the military doesnt really want it, STOP it) and look for other ways to cut DOD. Stop running a deficit and pay down the debt. Imagine if you ran your finances like our government does?
(http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif)
The war.
Your mortgage deduction and the deduction on your lake property too.
Congressional salaries. (including retirement plans past and present).
Welfare.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Welfare.....
Up to a certain point. I think it should be used as intended and not as an alternative to holding down a job.
These words was supposedly written by our red headed, freckled face martyr, which gave the Parliament the right to issue a writ to seize him an hang him.
"That when any form of government becomes destructive in these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government , laying its foundation on such principals, ........"
He opposed the mob rule concept of the democracy.
When in the past the rule by representatives, who use personal beliefs in determining what is best for the people, without restrictions, then such Republic forms of government have failed. Athens invented it and most nations have at some time, but in the end the population become people of government. It then eliminates the people's government.
To reduce the public spending a nation would have to resort to reducing the duplication of services that the people are told they need. Reduce the inherent powers that have been given to the supposed leaders. Establish a system of checks and balances to where the people had the final vote. [mob rule]. Reduce the houses in Washington by 50%, Use paid employees, not volunteers that do not have to answer to the people for their actions.
No nation has been able to escape the corruption and miss use of the funds collected as taxes and fees from the now apathy public.
The answer is remove all those who say they represent the voting public. Clean the slate at the voting booths at election time.
Only the voters can save America as no one else gives a damn.
Dissolve the "Homeland Security" patronage, and restore FEMA to it's previous workable model.
Cut back and establish government salaries where they are comparable to the salaries paid by the private sector.
There is an article in to-days World pointing out that government salaries surpass those in the private sector. This is happening in all governments positions, national, state and local.
One thousand Tulsa desk jockeys? 1 for to every 1.5 city employees?
The mayor seems to believe she is doing such a good job placing our great grand-children in debt, she has already decided to run for a second term.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Your mortgage deduction and the deduction on your lake property too.
I said CUT spending, not find ways to weasle more money out of taxpayers.
I was talking about eliminating "your" mortgage deduction, not mine.
I wanted to point out something the federal government does that directly subsidizes your middle class life style. One has to wonder why every poor schmuck in the U.S. should help underwrite your home and your second home to boot. We could go on. Your kid's college grants and loans. The road you drove to work on. Et cetera, et cetera. Oh, but that's okay because it benefits you, right?
It looks to me that taking care of those uncapable or unwilling to work costs more federal dollars than everything else combined.
Let's enroll every unemployed person in the military or in a factory, provide room & board, and solve two problems at once.
/sarcasm
That's because there are no millionaires in your life.
If there were you come to a new appreciation of the rip offs at the top.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I was talking about eliminating "your" mortgage deduction, not mine.
I wanted to point out something the federal government does that directly subsidizes your middle class life style. One has to wonder why every poor schmuck in the U.S. should help underwrite your home and your second home to boot. We could go on. Your kid's college grants and loans. The road you drove to work on. Et cetera, et cetera. Oh, but that's okay because it benefits you, right?
FWIW, the government has pretty much made the mortgage interest deduction irrelevant to those in the "middle class lifestyle" by raising the standard deduction.
The "poor schmucks" aren't underwriting much of anything. The poor don't pay any taxes or extremely little.
I personally believe college loan and grant programs are a far better investment in the human condition than welfare. College funding typically leads to better and more productive lives. Welfare, with some exceptions, often breeds more welfare-minded people.
What class does someone who has dumped $400K into the local economy in the last couple of years belong in, Hometown?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It looks to me that taking care of those uncapable or unwilling to work costs more federal dollars than everything else combined.
Let's enroll every unemployed person in the military or in a factory, provide room & board, and solve two problems at once.
/sarcasm
Those with a physical incapability, I can understand. But those who are just inherently lazy, those are the ones ya gotta crack down on.
I'd cut agriculture subsidies.
Those programs were meant originally for small farmers. But agriculture has become a bunch of corporations so that such subsidies are gravy, and most small farms have disappeared or don't benefit from such programs.
And remember, I grew up on a farm.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I'd cut agriculture subsidies.
Those programs were meant originally for small farmers. But agriculture has become a bunch of corporations so that such subsidies are gravy, and most small farms have disappeared or don't benefit from such programs.
And remember, I grew up on a farm.
How about subsidies for small farmers, and let the corporate farming concerns muddle along without government handouts.
I wouldn't mind that so much, except that most subsidies that help one guy hurt another. If a corn grower gets a price subsidy, it hurts the beef cattle rancher because it drives the cost of his finishing feed up.
Contradictory subsidies are all over in the agriculture sector, and I've never understood it -- except as a way for lawmakers to buy farmers' votes through a special-interest subsidy.
Farm subsidies are just a vicious circle, and as a result, a big waste of taxpayer money.
Get rid of 'em all.
Small farmers, especially if they raise organic or specialty foods, can actually command a much higher unit price than the corporate farmers who produce a zillion of one thing and don't have the care or expertise to produce a specialty item.
Yep, it's called voter insurance.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
One has to wonder why every poor schmuck in the U.S. should help underwrite your home and your second home to boot. We could go on. Your kid's college grants and loans. The road you drove to work on. Et cetera, et cetera. Oh, but that's okay because it benefits you, right?
You're argument incorrectly assumes that poor people pay taxes, they do not. The federal governments income is derived from income taxes. The bottom 40% or so actually receives a rebate from the government for existing. Thus, they subsidize nothing - we subsidize them.
Not that I am arguing in favor of the mortgage deduction - encouraging home ownership is an antiquated concept as we worry about urban sprawl.
College loans probably do more for the economy than anything else the government can do, a fine investment in itself. They are not limited to certain income levels or educational achievement, it is these loans that enable the poor (ME!) to go to college. Used by rich and poor alike.
Roads is an essential function of government. Remembering that the poor do not contribute financially to the federal government, they do not subsidize roads. Not to mention, in most areas of the country they utilize this asset as much as their wealthier counterparts.