Q. For Small Government Adherents

Can you understand that those guilty of over charging and cheating the system, not those individuals needing it, are the ones that need to be investigated.


Government is rife with fraud, waste and abuse. I'd shrink government by going for the low hanging fruit first. Medicare has $20-30 Billion in waste alone...and there are so many stupid and redundant programs and departments....it's a clusterfuck.

from Heritage - Top 10 Examples of Government Waste
. Medicare Overspending

  • Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program efficiencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recipients billions of dollars annually.

    For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently compared the prices paid by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare's equipment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)

    A7B0C4A8D49B275BD66979A6F776F0E6.gif


    These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens' co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies.[8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.

    Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare's payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manufacturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices.[9]

    Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare's inefficiencies. Basic payment errors-the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors-cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off.[10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.[11]

    Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 billion to $30 billion annually without reducing benefits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 million uninsured low-income households.

Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.

Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inexplicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.

This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Redundancy Piled on Redundancy

Government's layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program's distinct rules and requirements.

Some overlap is inevitable because some agencies are defined by whom they serve (e.g., veterans, Native Americans, urbanites, and rural families), while others are defined by what they provide (e.g., housing, education, health care, and economic development). When these agencies' constituencies overlap, each relevant agency will often have its own program. With 342 separate economic development programs, the federal government needs to make consolidation a priority.

Consolidating duplicative programs will save money and improve government service. In addition to those programs that should be eliminated completely, Congress should consolidate the following sets of programs:

  • 342 economic development programs;
  • 130 programs serving the disabled;
  • 130 programs serving at-risk youth;
  • 90 early childhood development programs;
  • 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
  • 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
  • 50 homeless assistance programs;
  • 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
  • 40 separate employment and training programs;
  • 28 rural development programs;
  • 27 teen pregnancy programs;
  • 26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs;
  • 23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
  • 19 programs fighting substance abuse;
  • 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
  • 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
  • 12 food safety agencies;
  • 11 principal statistics agencies; and
  • Four overlapping land management agencies

Top 10 Examples of Government Waste
 
Hardly a threat, but I've never walked in a coward's shoes, so I understand how you might feel threatened. My comment was based on my experience, making arrests of dishonest punks, just like you.

Really? And what law did I violate? More rather, what of your sensibilities did I offend? A coward flouts his past as a law enforcement official in attempts to intimidate other people on a forum.

Your so called "experience" in law enforcement means jackshit here. You'll need more than your badge and sidearm if you want to hold your weight in a debate with me. Pure and simple. Only cowards call other people cowards, and then run when they prove otherwise.

And how am I dishonest, exactly? Did I destroy your argument that badly?

Bull Ring - TemplarKormac vs. Wry Catcher on Envy Rhetoric and wealth inequality Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dishonest 'cause you are a liar and are exactly like a cowardly punk - a sunday puncher who cuts and runs.

Now you're just whining. Why don't you come arrest me?
 
It may be partisan but it is not foolish. The is no better reason to be partisan than to counter the Crazy New Right and their foolish ideology.
I'm a conservative, not a partier. And there's no better reason to be a conservative than to fight back the corrupt liberal thought and all its' miserable failures.
Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).
I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.


I can't think of a bigger left wing hack than yourself and rdean. You two are locked in partisanship and couldn't supply an original thought if your life depended on it.

Thanks so much for sharing, I know it took much thought and likely several revisions to post such a unique and original personal attack.

Of course only an uneducated louche would expect originality, a rare occurrence indeed, and a criticism both arrogant and hackneyed, especially when posted by LBT, a charter member of the echo chamber.
 
Hardly a threat, but I've never walked in a coward's shoes, so I understand how you might feel threatened. My comment was based on my experience, making arrests of dishonest punks, just like you.

Really? And what law did I violate? More rather, what of your sensibilities did I offend? A coward flouts his past as a law enforcement official in attempts to intimidate other people on a forum.

Your so called "experience" in law enforcement means jackshit here. You'll need more than your badge and sidearm if you want to hold your weight in a debate with me. Pure and simple. Only cowards call other people cowards, and then run when they prove otherwise.

And how am I dishonest, exactly? Did I destroy your argument that badly?

Bull Ring - TemplarKormac vs. Wry Catcher on Envy Rhetoric and wealth inequality Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dishonest 'cause you are a liar and are exactly like a cowardly punk - a sunday puncher who cuts and runs.

Now you're just whining. Why don't you come arrest me?

Your character development is already arrested, why not respond to the links posted, links which frame the argument which you claim to have won by running away.
 
Hardly a threat, but I've never walked in a coward's shoes, so I understand how you might feel threatened. My comment was based on my experience, making arrests of dishonest punks, just like you.

Really? And what law did I violate? More rather, what of your sensibilities did I offend? A coward flouts his past as a law enforcement official in attempts to intimidate other people on a forum.

Your so called "experience" in law enforcement means jackshit here. You'll need more than your badge and sidearm if you want to hold your weight in a debate with me. Pure and simple. Only cowards call other people cowards, and then run when they prove otherwise.

And how am I dishonest, exactly? Did I destroy your argument that badly?

Bull Ring - TemplarKormac vs. Wry Catcher on Envy Rhetoric and wealth inequality Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dishonest 'cause you are a liar and are exactly like a cowardly punk - a sunday puncher who cuts and runs.

Now you're just whining. Why don't you come arrest me?

Your character development is already arrested, why not respond to the links posted, links which frame the argument which you claim to have won by running away.

You keep saying I ran away, but you were the one who publicly refused to address my "talking points." There isn't much to gain from debating someone who refuses to debate what was put forth in the post.

This thread of yours is a prime example.
 
Last edited:
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.
 
Last edited:
- Rab
That was a truly informed, cogent response


You get that type of argument a lot on this site.

Been fun going to "school" on this tread. And you got to meet rabbit and weasel. Aren't they some persuasive "debaters"? Them; "You a dummy, NO YOU Dummy. NO YOU A DUMMY". It does't get better by posts either. You have what, a couple hundred posts that make sense to your argument.. Rabbits got 60 thousand posts and hasn't made sense to an argument yet. His practice has made for some funny posts though; rabbit says "You a dummy, YOU a big dummy" over and over. Good luck if looking for an intelligent right wing response to most anything that might be of interest in a politics section.

You've studied that fractional banking system, that's for damned sure. Hobby or profession? Just curious.

- Rabbit and weasel? lol!

More hobby than profession with the economics part.
 
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.

I like the way you actually tackled the thread topic. I can't agree 100% with all you have here but I do agree with some of it.

Can't go along 100% with one, two, or three. But some interesting ideas, thanks.
 
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.

I like the way you actually tackled the thread topic. I can't agree 100% with all you have here but I do agree with some of it.

Can't go along 100% with one, two, or three. But some interesting ideas, thanks.

I'll second that. Good post.
 
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.


In the event that we want to "cancel" Social Security - fine. However, I would do it at, say, the age of thirteen. Anyone 13 and younger would be the stopping point. People who have been in the Social Security system all their lives made a one-way contractual agreement with the government. They weren't given a choice but to participate with the promise that it would be there when they reached the proper age.

I agree, SS can not stand. It simply can not. But rather than stop it for people who have paid into their entire working lives - stop it BEFORE those coming up are forced to pay into it and DO NOT tax them.

I completely disagree about sending everyone to College. 90% of those there now - simply do not belong. It's a monumental waste to send folks to College who should be building houses, driving trucks and working in a trade such as electrician, plumbing etc.
 
Start with a balanced budget amendment.

- The OP asked for a cost benefit analysis. That seems to be missing.

If asked, I can articulate very clearly the costs of a balanced budget amendment, and explain logically how destructive it would be.

Is there any argument FOR a balanced budget amendment that is based on anything other than emotion?

Balancing the budget is simple, as any common man has learned to live within his means. That, or spend recklessly and end up broken and on the streets. It's not emotional, it's realistic. How else do you address the spending?

So, perhaps you are familiar with this paper

"Analyzing the Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment"

In it, the economists argue the benefits and drawbacks of a balanced budget amendment. Two of the main benefits of such an amendment are these:

1) A balanced budget amendment likely would inspire the government to increase savings to hedge against future problems in the broader economy.

2) An elimination of the deficit also would reduce the millions of dollars in interest that the government pays on its debt when it runs a deficit.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...4aeb9e4e4b088b975e88a0a/1420736996813/bbr.pdf

There are always drawbacks, (tax volatility, crisis management, social services, etc) as you are so easily given to, but you ignore the benefits. The price of success is failure. But you can't keep failing on purpose and hope to succeed.
Why don't we actually balance a budget first and see what happens

It is easier to pass budget than a constitutional amendment. I suspect those who scream for balanced budgets will not be happy when we do
 
Start with a balanced budget amendment.

- The OP asked for a cost benefit analysis. That seems to be missing.

If asked, I can articulate very clearly the costs of a balanced budget amendment, and explain logically how destructive it would be.

Is there any argument FOR a balanced budget amendment that is based on anything other than emotion?

Balancing the budget is simple, as any common man has learned to live within his means. That, or spend recklessly and end up broken and on the streets. It's not emotional, it's realistic. How else do you address the spending?

So, perhaps you are familiar with this paper

"Analyzing the Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment"

In it, the economists argue the benefits and drawbacks of a balanced budget amendment. Two of the main benefits of such an amendment are these:

1) A balanced budget amendment likely would inspire the government to increase savings to hedge against future problems in the broader economy.

2) An elimination of the deficit also would reduce the millions of dollars in interest that the government pays on its debt when it runs a deficit.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...4aeb9e4e4b088b975e88a0a/1420736996813/bbr.pdf

There are always drawbacks, (tax volatility, crisis management, social services, etc) as you are so easily given to, but you ignore the benefits. The price of success is failure. But you can't keep failing on purpose and hope to succeed.
Why don't we actually balance a budget first and see what happens

It is easier to pass budget than a constitutional amendment. I suspect those who scream for balanced budgets will not be happy when we do

We have actually balanced three budgets in recent years. This was followed by a recession.

The problem with balancing a budget is that it doesn't reduce the market's desire for liquidity, and the market seeks that via private debt. Government spending seems to be largely a substitute for private debt, but it doesn't bring the instability with it that private borrowing does.
 
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.


In the event that we want to "cancel" Social Security - fine. However, I would do it at, say, the age of thirteen. Anyone 13 and younger would be the stopping point. People who have been in the Social Security system all their lives made a one-way contractual agreement with the government. They weren't given a choice but to participate with the promise that it would be there when they reached the proper age.

I agree, SS can not stand. It simply can not. But rather than stop it for people who have paid into their entire working lives - stop it BEFORE those coming up are forced to pay into it and DO NOT tax them.

I completely disagree about sending everyone to College. 90% of those there now - simply do not belong. It's a monumental waste to send folks to College who should be building houses, driving trucks and working in a trade such as electrician, plumbing etc.

//I agree, SS can not stand. It simply can not.//

- Why not?
 
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.


In the event that we want to "cancel" Social Security - fine. However, I would do it at, say, the age of thirteen. Anyone 13 and younger would be the stopping point. People who have been in the Social Security system all their lives made a one-way contractual agreement with the government. They weren't given a choice but to participate with the promise that it would be there when they reached the proper age.

I agree, SS can not stand. It simply can not. But rather than stop it for people who have paid into their entire working lives - stop it BEFORE those coming up are forced to pay into it and DO NOT tax them.

I completely disagree about sending everyone to College. 90% of those there now - simply do not belong. It's a monumental waste to send folks to College who should be building houses, driving trucks and working in a trade such as electrician, plumbing etc.
You realize that community college programs teach trades and technical skills right? I agree that not everyone is up to attending a high level university. But sending people who are long term unemployed to a small community college, so they can get something better than a Mcjob isn't as big an issue.
 
By small government, conservatives mean a Government that won't help poor people, a government that won't get involved in business practices, a government that doesn't care about the environment
Must you ALWAYS resort to partisan foolishness?
Show me a conservative plea for small government that doesn't center on those things
 
I'm a conservative, not a partier. And there's no better reason to be a conservative than to fight back the corrupt liberal thought and all its' miserable failures.
Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).
I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.


I can't think of a bigger left wing hack than yourself and rdean. You two are locked in partisanship and couldn't supply an original thought if your life depended on it.

Thanks so much for sharing, I know it took much thought and likely several revisions to post such a unique and original personal attack.

Of course only an uneducated louche would expect originality, a rare occurrence indeed, and a criticism both arrogant and hackneyed, especially when posted by LBT, a charter member of the echo chamber.


I responded to your thread and offered my opinion but then you proceeded with your usual bitterness and hate. IIRC, I have even commended you on your service in the military so don't get mad when I throw barbs back to your juvenile behavior. Of course, we all know that you can't handle criticisms coming back your way.
 
We have actually balanced three budgets in recent years. This was followed by a recession.

The problem with balancing a budget is that it doesn't reduce the market's desire for liquidity, and the market seeks that via private debt. Government spending seems to be largely a substitute for private debt, but it doesn't bring the instability with it that private borrowing does.
Proselytizing your religious views in a political forum makes no sense. It takes a great amount of faith in magic and superstition to believe we can spend our way to prosperity.
It won't work for you and it doesn't work for a country. A balanced budget causes a recession? LOL.
 
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.
Want my opinion of how you would do it in a way that would piss off both sides evenly? :popcorn:

1. Cut military spending by disbanding NATO and closing the military bases in other countries.*1
2. Disband Social Security and Food Stamps, and replace it with a education grant system for low and middle income - would cost less to send everyone to university and community college - than perpetually re-enforce poverty and welfare dependency.
3. Restructure the Federal Reserve, and put it under the direct control of Congress.
4. Close the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc and replace it with a single agency, with oversight [from] the Supreme Court and Congress.
5. Close the FDA, and create a voluntary standards agency.
6. End the drug war on marijuana and low level drugs, or even better send the US military to Mexico to clean up the cartels.
7. Close the DOH, and allow states to run their own health system - or adopt a private system i.e. Vermont can have UHC, and Texas can have a private system.
8. Close the DOT, and create a national infrastructure fund which states can draw on every year to build infrastructure and fix pot holes.
9. Restructure the IRS, cut taxes for lower income, and introduce either a flat tax or progressive tax system.
10. Restart the space program, and don't fight wars the country can't afford.

Do all that, and you eliminate trillions of unnecessary spending, and put America in government surplus.

*1: All that money can be better spent on bringing down the national debt and caring for veterans.


In the event that we want to "cancel" Social Security - fine. However, I would do it at, say, the age of thirteen. Anyone 13 and younger would be the stopping point. People who have been in the Social Security system all their lives made a one-way contractual agreement with the government. They weren't given a choice but to participate with the promise that it would be there when they reached the proper age.

I agree, SS can not stand. It simply can not. But rather than stop it for people who have paid into their entire working lives - stop it BEFORE those coming up are forced to pay into it and DO NOT tax them.

I completely disagree about sending everyone to College. 90% of those there now - simply do not belong. It's a monumental waste to send folks to College who should be building houses, driving trucks and working in a trade such as electrician, plumbing etc.
You realize that community college programs teach trades and technical skills right? I agree that not everyone is up to attending a high level university. But sending people who are long term unemployed to a small community college, so they can get something better than a Mcjob isn't as big an issue.

I agree, college isn't for everyone. Those unable or unwilling to commit to four more years of academic study need to develop the skills needed today and in the future. Community college is one avenue, community service is another.

Consider, CCC in CA

Basic Qualifications

on a national level.
 

Forum List

Back
Top