Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Obiwan]

My suggestion for saving money.......

Go with the Democrats' plan for "more jobs". If someone is on Welfare, schedule them to work hours for the community in return for their monthly check, and allow them to list the work as "job experience".

 

[RandallFlagg]

Go with the Democrats' plan for "more jobs". If someone is on Welfare, schedule them to work hours for the community in return for their monthly check, and allow them to list the work as "job experience".

I have always been in favor of those who seek government assistance be willing to work on road projects, cleaning cities and counties and working on replacing this "aging infrastructure: that we hear so much about. Honest work - honest pay.

Liberals, however, see that as somehow "demeaning"..........go figure.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.

Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.

The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.

Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.

The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.

LOL, yeah, sure I do.

That it never occurred to you, that with several hundred thousand jobs lost ,there would be be less tax payers, isn't surprising.

 

[Wuwei]

I have always been in favor of those who seek government assistance be willing to work on road projects, cleaning cities and counties and working on replacing this "aging infrastructure: that we hear so much about. Honest work - honest pay.

Liberals, however, see that as somehow "demeaning"..........go figure.

I agree, but you are talking about only 9% of the people. Most that can work do work. Even then, of those 9%, much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance while they look for jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...its-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts

“Three-quarters of entitlement benefits written into law in the United States go toward the elderly or disabled. That's according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And a big chunk of the rest goes to working households. Only about 9 percent of all entitlement benefits go toward non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that involves health care and unemployment insurance)”​

 

[TemplarKormac]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government? Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

END THE FED!!! WOOOOO!!

Ahem, now that that's out of my system...

Please, explain to us how you would maintain a bigger government. Since you believe it to be a good thing, perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us the benefits it would reap for the average American citizen.

Your attempt at trying to trap conservatives in their own ideology is utterly predictable. Now, if you have a way to shrink government, we'd all be glad to hear it. Answer your own question.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government? Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

END THE FED!!! WOOOOO!!

Ahem, now that that's out of my system...

Please, explain to us how you would maintain a bigger government. Since you believe it to be a good thing, perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us the benefits it would reap for the average American citizen.

Your attempt at trying to trap conservatives in their own ideology is utterly predictable. Now, if you have a way to shrink government, we'd all be glad to hear it. Answer your own question.

Gee, I missed you. You cut and ran after you goaded me into a debate. You're pitiful.

That out of my system, though calling you pitiful doesn't really describe all of your many character flaws, I'll leave it there.

We don't need a bigger government, but thanks so much for telling me what I want, it is so like you to open with a logical fallacy,

What we need to do is to bring spending under control, something simple in design, and nearly impossible in the real world.

This is what I think might work:

• Amend Article II of the COTUS and give the POTUS the line-item veto
• Amend Article II and limit a POTUS to one term of six years
• Amend Article I of the COTUS to allow The Congress to control and limit campaign spending

I have more ideas, but chew on these for a while.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Small government is pointless when you demand your country to be the most powerful on earth. It is counter-productive.

A government needs to be able to invest in infrastructure, science, r&d, education and law enforcement. Haiti has a small government and we see how that works....

If you're talking about accountable or smart government? Well, you may have a point, but you can't have both.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This country spends a combined 5% on science and infrastructure. At one time we had the best infrastructure and science on earth. Leadership in this world is a hell of a lot more then just a powerful military.

It would be the stupidest move we could ever make to throw more on the over sea's empire while cutting these two. Great civilizations have fallen by doing so.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.

Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.

The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.

Hell, there would be less tax payers as there'd be less people working. Government makes up most of our infrastructure and science institutions by far. Tens of millions of jobs would go down the crapper! High paying ones. Of course, you don't have any facts as you're just spouting bullshit.

 

[Billy000]

First, go to a flat tax or another easier tax system...get rid of most of the IRS...get rid of the Dept. of Education and allow the states to keep that money...or more importantly the tax payers.....that would be the start....get rid of the grants for humanities or whatever that is called...stop most foreign aid to enemies of this country...do an audit on all government agencies...reign them in and cut their staff an initial 10% and then dig in and see how much more you can cut them.....cut back on congressional staff and perks.....
The list would be endless.......mention some and I'll let you know...

Phase out Social Security into another, more effective system...encourage people to save their own money for retirement......

Get rid of the post office...let the private sector handle it...........

You realize of course that every level of government already gets audits right?

 

[Billy000]

This is a good topic. Unfortunately as expected the answers are lazy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What America needs is more high paying infrastructure, science and r&d for Americans. Less wars, welfare and idiocy. The public sector does a lot of good and is one of the reason why we are a leader in science and r&d development....Aint saying the private sector doesn't play a big roll but lets be honest and they do a lot of their shit over sea's.. You can't say you're for America being a developed leader on this planet without being for these.

 

[Billy000]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

Yet, these people want to slash, cut and fuck all the away across it with a butcher knife! Yet, they blame Obama for our slipping ranking in the world. These people don't have a plan!

 

[Billy000]

The real cuts need to go to defense. There is so much that is bloated and unnecessary.

 

[Billy000]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

Yet, these people want to slash, cut and fuck all the away across it with a butcher knife! Yet, they blame Obama for our slipping ranking in the world. These people don't have a plan!

Yeah exactly. Their view of the government is so emotional. They can't think about this topic critically. Someone on here said "10%" yet didn't address real specifics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

 

[Billy000]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

Yes exactly. cutting jobs. That's a very important issue. Like I said, they are just too emotional. They hate government workers because of their precious tax dollars. I made a thread about my government job and a few of them called me a moocher

Sure, there's government waste, but their broad stroke of the federal government lacks any critical thinking.

 

[ScienceRocks]

IF it wasn't for government jobs like the
Cdc we wouldn't be able to fight diseases like the swine flue or Ebola. Yet, these assholes blamed Obama for it and expected him to stop it! Can't do that without the CDC and NIH.

Can't warn the entire population of that tornado or hurricane or severe weather without the national weather service.

Can't make sure our water and air is clean without the epa and regulations demanding that it be so.

Can't make sure our food and medicine is good for you...Hell, we'd look like mexico or some other third world hell hole if it wasn't for the good old FDA!

Government invest big time in science. We wouldn't lead or be within the top 10 in science if it wasn't so! NSF, etc.

Government uses our tax dollars to maintain our roads. You're going to pay one way or another!

How about those men we call pigs? Those men that put their lives on the line to keep our cities stable??? COPS!!! Or how about those black robbed assholes?? SUre, call them names but we need them. That takes tax dollars!

These are just a few areas that government is needed within a modern economy!