What to cut: The Federal Budget

[The Rabbi]

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

I don't debate that farm subsidies programs have overwhelmingly helped large corporations over small farms. The large coroporations organize towards subsidies and have the resources to do it.

The idea we could run out of food or that we could find ourselves cut off from overseas food suplies isn't that absurd. After all, OPEC cut us off from oil in the 70's despite enormous lost revenues. In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl. The figures on malnutrition to outright starvation in the lowest income levels now are astounding.

Feeding the world population is a problem that is growing rapidly. We'll also have to face that at some very future point. If we fail to protect American agriculture, we'll have a lot less flexibility to handle that situation when it comes.

I agree subsidies might not be the best way to do it, but we do need to find some tool that can work rather than just letting what happens happen.

We didnt run out of oil despite OPEC's boycott. And oil is cheaper today in constant terms than it was then.
In the Depression people were starving. Others were burning crops at government directive to raise prices. There was no shortage of food, just a poor delivery system. But we've changed some as a society since the 1930s, in terms of the "Green Revolution" and distribution systems. So that isn't a valid comparison anymore.
As far as malnutrition, most low income people suffer from obesity. So if people aren't getting proper nourishment, that is a different problem and not solvable by subsidies.

As far as feeding the world population, it is hard to take that as a challenge in a day when governments in Europe and the U.S. regularly destroy crops and pay farmers to keep land out of production.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl.

Actually, the depression had very little effect in the Appalachians as most people were already dirt poor and completely self-sufficient. My relatives are from there (southeast appalachia) - they always grew their own food, made their own clothes etc., and trust me, they fared much better than people in the cities and in the dust bowl.

 

[johnrocks]

In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl.

Actually, the depression had very little effect in the Appalachians as most people were already dirt poor and completely self-sufficient. My relatives are from there (southeast appalachia) - they always grew their own food, made their own clothes etc., and trust me, they fared much better than people in the cities and in the dust bowl.

Yep, both my Parents were raised on farms, my Mom said they didn't even realize there was a Great Depression until they moved to town at the beginning of WWll

 

[8537]

Merriam-Webster provides us with two definitions for the word "welfare":

: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

Insofar as the second definition DIDN'T EXIST in this country - or in any country that I am aware of - at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it doesn't take any major deductive reasoning to glean that the meaning of the word that the Founding Fathers had in mind must have been the only one there was then.

Welfare fitting that definition very much DID exist prior to the Constitution and the founders would have been quite familiar with it. After passage of enclosure laws in England, a wide range of programs to protect and aid the poor were created.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's one I'm always unsure of. In principle I hate that we have farm subsidies. In practice, its a national security issue. If Agriculture here in the States becomes unprofitable and ceases, then we're dependent on foreign sources of food. Its bad enough we're dependent on foreign oil.

I'd be interested in other ways to help protect American Agriculture, but I think you have to have some sort of program in place.

Why?
Price supports have distorted the market and cost consumers probably trillions of dollars. The idea that we're going to run out of food is absurd, or that the 200 other countries that produce will refuse to sell it to us.
Most benefit gets paid to large corporations and wealthy people. It is sold as helping the small family farm. In reality it has done the opposite.

I don't debate that farm subsidies programs have overwhelmingly helped large corporations over small farms. The large coroporations organize towards subsidies and have the resources to do it.

The idea we could run out of food or that we could find ourselves cut off from overseas food suplies isn't that absurd. After all, OPEC cut us off from oil in the 70's despite enormous lost revenues. In the Depression, there was actual starvation in the Appalachians and in the dust bowl. The figures on malnutrition to outright starvation in the lowest income levels now are astounding.

Feeding the world population is a problem that is growing rapidly. We'll also have to face that at some very future point. If we fail to protect American agriculture, we'll have a lot less flexibility to handle that situation when it comes.

I agree subsidies might not be the best way to do it, but we do need to find some tool that can work rather than just letting what happens happen.

Food isn't oil, Trav. Where oil must be found and extracted in the finite places it exists, food can be grown almost anywhere, given modern technology. So while foreign oil suppliers can hurt us by cutting off oil supplies, the most foreign food suppliers can do is drive up prices on certain items until more crops can be put in somewhere in the US. The United States is not going to stop growing food if agriculture subsidies are discontinued. And frankly, I think reducing or removing dependence on government INCREASES profitability all around, rather than making things less profitable. Granted, one might have to work harder to be profitable, but oh, well.

Protectionism simply is not good economic policy.

 

[8537]

Reagan ran up huge deficits and rates were lower than under Carter

you might not be smart enough to do so, but bond purchasers require an adjustment for inflation to create a real rate of return.

, Obama has run up deficits bigger that the budgets of most countries than almost ever nation on the planet and rates are lower than under Reagan.

That's because the Fed is actively pushing to keep them artificially low. This isn't a surprise to you, is it?

is it?

Can you show us when this "Crowding" actually occurred?

Let's try this: can you explain how adding government debt to the bond pool could NOT lead to lower interest rates?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.

That doesn't exactly fly right. The Constitution has always had implied powers where it makes sense. Finding justification for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc requires reading just as tenous as a lot of the arguments for Social Security, Medicare, etc. After all, the Constitution only specifically mentions the Army and Navy when it comes to national defense, and militias at the State level. So where do independent intelligence gathering agencies and Federal law enforcement enter the picture?

A few extremely famous. For example: Who had the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase? That was a minor Constitutional crisis.

Not to mention the Constitution as originally written doesn't lay out the chain of succession, doesn't lay out a single role for the Judicial, doesn't lay out a method for stopping Congress from passing laws that are unconstitutional, doesn't address a method to determine a law's constitutionality, nor even provide for resolving when two states disagree on whether a Federal law is constitutional.

Its vague, and as such implied powers have been there from almost the start.

It doesn't mention an Air Force, because there were no airplanes yet at that time.

But yet, apparently it was constitutional to create an Air Force once airplanes were invented.

Since only Navy and Army are listed, how else does one assume Air Force is authorized, then to blanket "common defense" as justification?

The government is RIDDLED with authority to do things not specifically listed in the constitution that many conservatives never make a peep about.

Army - a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land

The highlighted phrase indicates one reason why the land-based forces of the US military bear the official name of "Army" (the other reason being that they showed up first). However, as we can see, the definition of "army" is not limited to land-based troops. And the Constitution says, "To raise and support Armies" - plural. Why? Possibly to allow for flexibility in changing tactics and abilities as time passes. And, in fact, the Continental Congress provided for the raising of the Marines, way back in November of 1775, before the Constitution was even written, to serve as a landing force for the Navy and bridge the gap between naval forces and land-based forces. So it's not like they didn't know about the possibility of needing other types of military.

 

[Paulie]

I notice that some here got quiet after the double standards on interpretations of the constitution were pointed out.

 

[Paulie]

That doesn't exactly fly right. The Constitution has always had implied powers where it makes sense. Finding justification for the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, etc requires reading just as tenous as a lot of the arguments for Social Security, Medicare, etc. After all, the Constitution only specifically mentions the Army and Navy when it comes to national defense, and militias at the State level. So where do independent intelligence gathering agencies and Federal law enforcement enter the picture?

A few extremely famous. For example: Who had the authority to authorize the Louisiana Purchase? That was a minor Constitutional crisis.

Not to mention the Constitution as originally written doesn't lay out the chain of succession, doesn't lay out a single role for the Judicial, doesn't lay out a method for stopping Congress from passing laws that are unconstitutional, doesn't address a method to determine a law's constitutionality, nor even provide for resolving when two states disagree on whether a Federal law is constitutional.

Its vague, and as such implied powers have been there from almost the start.

It doesn't mention an Air Force, because there were no airplanes yet at that time.

But yet, apparently it was constitutional to create an Air Force once airplanes were invented.

Since only Navy and Army are listed, how else does one assume Air Force is authorized, then to blanket "common defense" as justification?

The government is RIDDLED with authority to do things not specifically listed in the constitution that many conservatives never make a peep about.

Army - a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land

The highlighted phrase indicates one reason why the land-based forces of the US military bear the official name of "Army" (the other reason being that they showed up first). However, as we can see, the definition of "army" is not limited to land-based troops. And the Constitution says, "To raise and support Armies" - plural. Why? Possibly to allow for flexibility in changing tactics and abilities as time passes. And, in fact, the Continental Congress provided for the raising of the Marines, way back in November of 1775, before the Constitution was even written, to serve as a landing force for the Navy and bridge the gap between naval forces and land-based forces. So it's not like they didn't know about the possibility of needing other types of military.

You don't seem to understand the concept of "interpretation", do you?

You just INTERPRETED that to mean what you wanted it to mean.

How about CIA? FBI? DEA? NSA?

What authorizes congress to create those?

Where's the authorization for the creation of most of the cabinet? What authorizes Health and Human services? Energy? Housing and Urban Development?

The double standards stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Merriam-Webster provides us with two definitions for the word "welfare":

: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

Insofar as the second definition DIDN'T EXIST in this country - or in any country that I am aware of - at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it doesn't take any major deductive reasoning to glean that the meaning of the word that the Founding Fathers had in mind must have been the only one there was then.

Welfare fitting that definition very much DID exist prior to the Constitution and the founders would have been quite familiar with it. After passage of enclosure laws in England, a wide range of programs to protect and aid the poor were created.

Nice try, but no. Deliberately trying to conflate and confuse community aid to the poor with government subsidies to the poor is just dishonest. And that IS what England had: community aid. The welfare of the vulnerable in the late 18th and early 19th centuries: Gilbert's Act of 1782, by Samantha Shave

Furthermore, none of this was associated at that time with the word "welfare", which only acquired its second definition in the 20th century. A look at a dictionary from the time of the writing of the Constitution - Samuel Johnson’s “A Dictionary of the English Language“ (published in 1755) - shows us this:

Welfare: 1. Happiness; success; prosperity (synonyms for well-being, which I can prove for you out of the thesaurus, if you really need me to)

"General", of course, is defined in that same archaic dictionary as "Comprehending many species or individuals; Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations; Public; comprising the whole".

So once again, as I said before and despite any dodges and attempts at verbal sleight-of-hand, we can see that our Founding Fathers, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, certainly did not think the word "welfare" meant "giving people government checks" and cewtainly were not authorizing Congress to do any such thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I notice that some here got quiet after the double standards on interpretations of the constitution were pointed out.

Before inflating your ego to the point that it doesn't fit through doors, you might want to consider this:

It's the middle of the day. Most of us have lives, and other things we're doing with our day besides sitting here, breathlessly awaiting your words of wisdom to drip from your lips so that we can respond to them. In other words, sometimes we have to stand up, walk away from the computer, and do things that actually matter.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally had to drive my teenager to school and then stop by the supermarket to replenish my supply of milk, lest the toddler gnaw my leg off in a fit of calcium-deprived rage. In a little while, I'm going to go give the aforementioned toddler a bath (what a baby can do with a PB&J could just make you cry sometimes) and do some laundry. The ensuing break in conversation then will ALSO not be an indication of how brillliantly and incisively you have stunned all opposition into silence, but merely an indication of my need to live my life.

Get over yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't mention an Air Force, because there were no airplanes yet at that time.

But yet, apparently it was constitutional to create an Air Force once airplanes were invented.

Since only Navy and Army are listed, how else does one assume Air Force is authorized, then to blanket "common defense" as justification?

The government is RIDDLED with authority to do things not specifically listed in the constitution that many conservatives never make a peep about.

Army - a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land

The highlighted phrase indicates one reason why the land-based forces of the US military bear the official name of "Army" (the other reason being that they showed up first). However, as we can see, the definition of "army" is not limited to land-based troops. And the Constitution says, "To raise and support Armies" - plural. Why? Possibly to allow for flexibility in changing tactics and abilities as time passes. And, in fact, the Continental Congress provided for the raising of the Marines, way back in November of 1775, before the Constitution was even written, to serve as a landing force for the Navy and bridge the gap between naval forces and land-based forces. So it's not like they didn't know about the possibility of needing other types of military.

You don't seem to understand the concept of "interpretation", do you?

You just INTERPRETED that to mean what you wanted it to mean.

How about CIA? FBI? DEA? NSA?

What authorizes congress to create those?

Where's the authorization for the creation of most of the cabinet? What authorizes Health and Human services? Energy? Housing and Urban Development?

The double standards stick out like a sore thumb.

Once again, dear, all I did was look at the freaking words and the historical facts.

You, however, are interpreting wildly in that you are attributing a belief in the Constitutionality of the FBI, CIA, and company that I have, in fact, never expressed.

If you wish to ask me IF I think they're Constitutional, then do so. Do NOT get up in my face and demand to know WHY I think they're Constitutional before being sure that I actually think that.

Back off, asshole.

 

[Paulie]

Army - a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land

The highlighted phrase indicates one reason why the land-based forces of the US military bear the official name of "Army" (the other reason being that they showed up first). However, as we can see, the definition of "army" is not limited to land-based troops. And the Constitution says, "To raise and support Armies" - plural. Why? Possibly to allow for flexibility in changing tactics and abilities as time passes. And, in fact, the Continental Congress provided for the raising of the Marines, way back in November of 1775, before the Constitution was even written, to serve as a landing force for the Navy and bridge the gap between naval forces and land-based forces. So it's not like they didn't know about the possibility of needing other types of military.

You don't seem to understand the concept of "interpretation", do you?

You just INTERPRETED that to mean what you wanted it to mean.

How about CIA? FBI? DEA? NSA?

What authorizes congress to create those?

Where's the authorization for the creation of most of the cabinet? What authorizes Health and Human services? Energy? Housing and Urban Development?

The double standards stick out like a sore thumb.

Once again, dear, all I did was look at the freaking words and the historical facts.

You, however, are interpreting wildly in that you are attributing a belief in the Constitutionality of the FBI, CIA, and company that I have, in fact, never expressed.

If you wish to ask me IF I think they're Constitutional, then do so. Do NOT get up in my face and demand to know WHY I think they're Constitutional before being sure that I actually think that.

Back off, asshole.

You must be a real pleasure to know in real life

Come on...tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, and most of the cabinet are constitutional.

 

[Charles_Main]

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

Read the sentence. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc., and then it says WHY Congress can do that: to pay the nation's debts and to provide for the nation's defense and welfare (defined as well-being, not checks to poor people). THEN the rest of the section lays out HOW Congress is going to provide for defense and well-being nationally. So yeah, there are powers specifically mentioned in that first sentence, but they are still part of the mission statement of Congress. And "common Defence and general Welfare" are purely explanatory, rather than directive.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

This is your opinion, and nothing more.

It is worded way too vaguely to make any specific assumptions of what you THINK the authors were trying to say.

They never said anywhere that general welfare is "defined" as anything. You're adding that one on your own to defend your opinion.

It's time for an amendment.

Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.

Take a look at my quotes for example in my sig.

What is so hard to understand about what Jefferson or Madison said about this question, which was already being asked in their life times.

Particularly what Madison said, as I think he explains it rather well. If you can use the general welfare line of the Preamble to justify Any social spending programs, then you are in effect giving the Fed Virtually unlimited power To do just about anything they want and justify it under General Welfare.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

You are right it is the mission statement. But the words General Welfare in it. Meant the General Well Being of the country. It was not referring to Welfare Programs as we think of them today. You do know that for nearly 5 Generations we had NO federal Welfare programs at all right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't seem to understand the concept of "interpretation", do you?

You just INTERPRETED that to mean what you wanted it to mean.

How about CIA? FBI? DEA? NSA?

What authorizes congress to create those?

Where's the authorization for the creation of most of the cabinet? What authorizes Health and Human services? Energy? Housing and Urban Development?

The double standards stick out like a sore thumb.

Once again, dear, all I did was look at the freaking words and the historical facts.

You, however, are interpreting wildly in that you are attributing a belief in the Constitutionality of the FBI, CIA, and company that I have, in fact, never expressed.

If you wish to ask me IF I think they're Constitutional, then do so. Do NOT get up in my face and demand to know WHY I think they're Constitutional before being sure that I actually think that.

Back off, asshole.

You must be a real pleasure to know in real life

Come on...tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, and most of the cabinet are constitutional.

In real life, I don't associate with people so stupid, rude, and hubristic as to think they can put words in my mouth and then take me to task for them. In all facets of my life, I am as pleasurable to know as your behavior deserves for me to be. Think on that.

Once again, if you have a question to ask me, then ASK it. Don't tell me what you think my answer to it is. Courtesy is given to those who earn it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Read the sentence. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc., and then it says WHY Congress can do that: to pay the nation's debts and to provide for the nation's defense and welfare (defined as well-being, not checks to poor people). THEN the rest of the section lays out HOW Congress is going to provide for defense and well-being nationally. So yeah, there are powers specifically mentioned in that first sentence, but they are still part of the mission statement of Congress. And "common Defence and general Welfare" are purely explanatory, rather than directive.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

This is your opinion, and nothing more.

It is worded way too vaguely to make any specific assumptions of what you THINK the authors were trying to say.

They never said anywhere that general welfare is "defined" as anything. You're adding that one on your own to defend your opinion.

It's time for an amendment.

Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.

Take a look at my quotes for example in my sig.

What is so hard to understand about what Jefferson or Madison said about this question, which was already being asked in their life times.

Particularly what Madison said, as I think he explains it rather well. If you can use the general welfare line of the Preamble to justify Any social spending programs, then you are in effect giving the Fed Virtually unlimited power To do just about anything they want and justify it under General Welfare.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

You are right it is the mission statement. But the words General Welfare in it. Meant the General Well Being of the country. It was not referring to Welfare Programs as we think of them today. You do know that for nearly 5 Generations we had NO federal Welfare programs at all right.

I have already said this.

 

[Paulie]

Once again, dear, all I did was look at the freaking words and the historical facts.

You, however, are interpreting wildly in that you are attributing a belief in the Constitutionality of the FBI, CIA, and company that I have, in fact, never expressed.

If you wish to ask me IF I think they're Constitutional, then do so. Do NOT get up in my face and demand to know WHY I think they're Constitutional before being sure that I actually think that.

Back off, asshole.

You must be a real pleasure to know in real life

Come on...tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, and most of the cabinet are constitutional.

In real life, I don't associate with people so stupid, rude, and hubristic as to think they can put words in my mouth and then take me to task for them. In all facets of my life, I am as pleasurable to know as your behavior deserves for me to be. Think on that.

Once again, if you have a question to ask me, then ASK it. Don't tell me what you think my answer to it is. Courtesy is given to those who earn it.

I just said "tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA ..... are constitutional"

That's the same fucking thing as asking you if you think they are.

Let's see how small government you really are.

 

[Paulie]

Read the sentence. It says Congress can lay and collect taxes, etc., and then it says WHY Congress can do that: to pay the nation's debts and to provide for the nation's defense and welfare (defined as well-being, not checks to poor people). THEN the rest of the section lays out HOW Congress is going to provide for defense and well-being nationally. So yeah, there are powers specifically mentioned in that first sentence, but they are still part of the mission statement of Congress. And "common Defence and general Welfare" are purely explanatory, rather than directive.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

This is your opinion, and nothing more.

It is worded way too vaguely to make any specific assumptions of what you THINK the authors were trying to say.

They never said anywhere that general welfare is "defined" as anything. You're adding that one on your own to defend your opinion.

It's time for an amendment.

Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.

Take a look at my quotes for example in my sig.

What is so hard to understand about what Jefferson or Madison said about this question, which was already being asked in their life times.

Particularly what Madison said, as I think he explains it rather well. If you can use the general welfare line of the Preamble to justify Any social spending programs, then you are in effect giving the Fed Virtually unlimited power To do just about anything they want and justify it under General Welfare.

The preamble, on the other hand, is the mission statement for the whole Constitution.

You are right it is the mission statement. But the words General Welfare in it. Meant the General Well Being of the country. It was not referring to Welfare Programs as we think of them today. You do know that for nearly 5 Generations we had NO federal Welfare programs at all right.

Yeah I can see your point.

Believe me, I'm all about bring this government back within limits.

About the only social spending I support is food for those whose income cna not cover that expense.

I absolutely do NOT support cutting someone a check and giving them CASH to go spend. I'd be ok with a program of cultivating different foods and rationing them directly.

Maybe that's "constitutional", maybe that's not.

But that's my point for an amendment. Let's MAKE it constitutional.

If you don't agree, that's fine. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You must be a real pleasure to know in real life

Come on...tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, and most of the cabinet are constitutional.

In real life, I don't associate with people so stupid, rude, and hubristic as to think they can put words in my mouth and then take me to task for them. In all facets of my life, I am as pleasurable to know as your behavior deserves for me to be. Think on that.

Once again, if you have a question to ask me, then ASK it. Don't tell me what you think my answer to it is. Courtesy is given to those who earn it.

I just said "tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA ..... are constitutional"

That's the same fucking thing as asking you if you think they are.

Let's see how small government you really are.

No, it ISN'T the "same fucking thing". I can see why you think you need an Amendment to explain the grammar of the Constitution to you. Clearly, English is not your forte.

Telling me what to say is not the same thing as asking me what I think. Just that one sentence should explain the difference to anyone who understands elementary-school vocabulary.

Let's see how English proficient you are, when you attempt once again to REQUEST my opinion from me, rather than TELLING me what it is, TELLING me what it should be, or demanding that I demonstrate anything to you, as though I owe you something.

Your mother ever tell you you'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar? Because I can tell you now, acting as though I'm obligated to justify myself to you is the surest way to get nothing from me but ignored as a troll.

 

[rdean]

First, cut all subsidies to oil companies.

Second, review the "tax exempt" status of Churches. If they are so involved in politics, they are not just churches, but political organizations. They should have to pay.

Drop the trillion dollar tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

Declare victory in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home.

Close military bases in Europe for sure and possibly Japan.

Increase tariffs on companies bringing products made overseas that used to be made here. At least to the level of what those products would have cost under minimum wage. We want to compete, but if people in China are willing to work for 100 bucks a month, good. We aren't. They way Europe does it is to have inspectors that are paid for by the companies, but work for the government. Gifts over $25 not allowed, that only leaves lunch.

Heavier fines for pollution and that even means littering. This across the board.

Look at some method for share holders to have enough power to keep CEO's from hundred million dollar paychecks.

Tax credits for R&D.

That's a start.

I thought the title of this thread was, "What to cut: The Federal Budget". Guess not.