• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to reduce cost of government[W:155]

Where does government get the money to pay their federal employees?
Isn't that money better spent by the private sector in the private sector?

yes especially since govt workers often get twice the pay as comparable jobs in the private sector
 
Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

These things can be done by the States and still have people keep their jobs. All it's doing is shifting the burden from the Federal level to the State level.
 
That is what I mean by attrition. Nobody looses their job. We just do not replace them when they leave the government. Nobody gets fired.

That attrition happens slowly does not change the fact that the public sector is shrinking and fewer people have jobs. The population grows, yet you want to eliminate jobs.

The other problem with attrition is that the same amount of work gets pushed on the remaining employees. (My wife can vouch for that.) Regardless of what you think, government employees do things that need to be done.

Why reduce rhe size of government?
So we can reduce the taxes we have to pay.
Is that not a good reason?

That depends. Reducing taxes on people who need to spend all of their income to survive? Good. Reducing taxes on people who save a good chunk of their income? Not so good. Especially when reducing taxes means reduced services.

The private sector produces goods and services that people buy. I belive when we pay less taxes (to the government), we buy more things (from the private sector). Therefore, the econmy progresses and employ more people.

It's very doubtful that the private sector would employ all of the people let go by shrinking the government, let alone increase the net number of jobs. The private sector meets all demand right now without employing anywhere near all available labor.
 
Where does government get the money to pay their federal employees?
Isn't that money better spent by the private sector in the private sector?

Probably not. What do you spend your last dollars on? Once the rent is paid and the groceries are bought, what do you buy that's more important than government services? Essential stuff, I'm sure.

Government, especially the federal one, has become a bloated, under performing, over expensive, over interceding, excessively intrusive, bureaucrat protecting, bureaucracy, without any sort of spending controls or spending discipline, with little more than an culture of excessive spending and corruption, and frankly, needs to have a very large budget axe taken to it for multiple years in a row before it's going to be the size that it satisfactorily justify being.

Government, and it's associated costs, are the overhead for having the self-governing society that we have, and everyone always needs to be mindful that overhead isn't any sort of advantage in anything. It's a cost that steals from everyone and everything else, and ought to be minimized at every turn, and who's expenses should be tightly managed to worthwhile deeds done as cheaply, as efficiently, and as effectively as possible.

Bloated? The President earns $400,000/year. Compare that to private sector CEOs, especially the ones earning tens of millions for doing a lousy job.

I doubt that there's a single nation in human history that grew to greatness by increasing their governmental overhead costs, but I'd imagine that there are probably many that have collapsed because they didn't. Just look at Venezuela. Is that where you want to end up?

Yeah, of course the best comparison is Venezuela. Why not Denmark?
 
These things can be done by the States and still have people keep their jobs. All it's doing is shifting the burden from the Federal level to the State level.

States can't handle the finances.
 
States can't handle the finances.

Really? So if treasury still did transfer payments (of a larger amount because you wouldn't have to pay for those agencies at Federal level) States wouldn't be able to cope with it? Since roughly 90% of all school funding (K-12) already comes from the States and Local taxes already, costs at the Federal level can be removed and States would have more money to give out because of the Federal costs will be 0.
 
Wow. Just wow.

Probably not. What do you spend your last dollars on? Once the rent is paid and the groceries are bought, what do you buy that's more important than government services? Essential stuff, I'm sure.

Always this distortion. Nowhere did I say that essential services wouldn't be paid for. But my God! The government sucks down more money than it's worth. It's overhead rate is far too high.

Bloated? The President earns $400,000/year. Compare that to private sector CEOs, especially the ones earning tens of millions for doing a lousy job.

Recall the discussion about overhead? CEOs earn their keep or are fired (which happens on a regular basis), so yes, they earn their pay, in spite of what you may think.

Yeah, of course the best comparison is Venezuela. Why not Denmark?

Denmark? Sure.

denmark-brutal-meme.jpg


Nothing is free. Even if you get it for free, there's someone else paying for it in some manner.

The government doesn't create a dam thing, it doesn't add any value, it launders money, take with the left, give with the right. Even those lauded accomplishments attributed to the government aren't really the government's at all, it was the private sector contractors and the workforce hired to do the work. The government's involvement is to sign the checks.
 
Let me see if I understand this correctly - you used a meme to back your argument, but your source for the meme was Snopes.com? And it was from a snopes article that debunked the very meme you were using? I don't know if that is dishonest, stupid, or a little of both.

View attachment 67203049

Brutal Meme Reveals Truth About European Socialist Countries? : snopes.com

Even Snopes concludes 'Mixture', so there's something to the meme.

Who's paying for all that 'much more', and will the people stand still for all that government forced confiscation to support it.

Regardless or the meme or not, the fact of the matter is that the more everyone wants for free, the more they are enslaved by the punitive and punishing taxes it takes to pay for it all. TANSTAAFL.

The people of the EU nations seem to have come to terms with this. They pay for it with ridiculous work rules, high cost of labor - so much so that no one hires during the good times, because they can't fire or lay off during the bad times.

I doubt the people of the USA will accept the same sort of socialistic deal. It's not really in the people's or the nation's nature (although I wonder about the BerniBots)

I notice that you've not commented at all about all the rest of that post.
 
Even Snopes concludes 'Mixture', so there's something to the meme.

Who's paying for all that 'much more', and will the people stand still for all that government forced confiscation to support it.

Regardless or the meme or not, the fact of the matter is that the more everyone wants for free, the more they are enslaved by the punitive and punishing taxes it takes to pay for it all. TANSTAAFL.

The people of the EU nations seem to have come to terms with this. They pay for it with ridiculous work rules, high cost of labor - so much so that no one hires during the good times, because they can't fire or lay off during the bad times.

I doubt the people of the USA will accept the same sort of socialistic deal. It's not really in the people's or the nation's nature (although I wonder about the BerniBots)

I notice that you've not commented at all about all the rest of that post.

Denmark actually has lower unemployment than the US at 4.3% and a higher labour force participation rate.
 
Denmark actually has lower unemployment than the US at 4.3% and a higher labour force participation rate.

Anyway you look at it, Denmark is an expensive place to live
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Denmark

Yet the disposable income per month is about the same
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Cost-of-living

Sounds to me that this adds up to working lots, but not being able to actually buy all that much (as everything is to bloody expensive).

Theft by another means, I think.
 
Let me see if I understand this correctly - you used a meme to back your argument, but your source for the meme was Snopes.com? And it was from a snopes article that debunked the very meme you were using? I don't know if that is dishonest, stupid, or a little of both.

Reason No. 10,432 to never hotlink images.
 
Anyway you look at it, Denmark is an expensive place to live
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Denmark

Yet the disposable income per month is about the same
Denmark vs United States Cost of living Stats Compared

Sounds to me that this adds up to working lots, but not being able to actually buy all that much (as everything is to bloody expensive).

Theft by another means, I think.

Well according to the OECD the Danish also work less hours than Americans. Danes work on average 1436 hours/year while Americans work 1789 hours/year. A 353 hour difference. This is true for most of Europe, Europeans value work-life balance and quality of life far more than Americans.
 
Anyway you look at it, Denmark is an expensive place to live
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Denmark

That document say that "Local Purchasing Power in Denmark is 0.29% higher than in United States."

>>Sounds to me that this adds up to working lots, but not being able to actually buy all that much (as everything is to bloody expensive).

I'm thinking you may have been listening to a voice in yer head saying "Denmark bad."
 
Where does government get the money to pay their federal employees?
Isn't that money better spent by the private sector in the private sector?

Government, especially the federal one, has become a bloated, under performing, over expensive, over interceding, excessively intrusive, bureaucrat protecting, bureaucracy, without any sort of spending controls or spending discipline, with little more than an culture of excessive spending and corruption, and frankly, needs to have a very large budget axe taken to it for multiple years in a row before it's going to be the size that it satisfactorily justify being.

Government, and it's associated costs, are the overhead for having the self-governing society that we have, and everyone always needs to be mindful that overhead isn't any sort of advantage in anything. It's a cost that steals from everyone and everything else, and ought to be minimized at every turn, and who's expenses should be tightly managed to worthwhile deeds done as cheaply, as efficiently, and as effectively as possible.

I doubt that there's a single nation in human history that grew to greatness by increasing their governmental overhead costs, but I'd imagine that there are probably many that have collapsed because they didn't. Just look at Venezuela. Is that where you want to end up?

Here's a leftist idea:

Why don't we just enlarge government to cover everything and eliminate the private sector altogether? Walmart and McDonalds can be taken over by the government and all of their employees will become government employees. Ditto every other private sector business. We can pay them all $15 per hour and just charge everything to the rich. Oh, wait a minute. There won't be rich anymore. But, we can print all the money we want and have as much debt as we need to employ everyone. I knew I would figure it out.
 
Thinker,
Please see the attrition plan as a long term solution.
We will be reducing slowly (by attrition) the government in a way to force the government to function more efficiently and the fraud and abuse will disapear because there will be less people in the government to fraud and abuse.

Sure, attrition can be a way to get this done - as part of the solution. I'm not a hardcore small government guy, I just think many billions of dollars can be saved through cutting waste. One way we can reduce the size of government is eliminating every program that pays religious dignitaries or hires them. This could be getting rid of all government and military chaplains and imams, etc. We are a secular country after all.
 
Even Snopes concludes 'Mixture', so there's something to the meme.

Who's paying for all that 'much more', and will the people stand still for all that government forced confiscation to support it.

Regardless or the meme or not, the fact of the matter is that the more everyone wants for free, the more they are enslaved by the punitive and punishing taxes it takes to pay for it all. TANSTAAFL.

The people of the EU nations seem to have come to terms with this. They pay for it with ridiculous work rules, high cost of labor - so much so that no one hires during the good times, because they can't fire or lay off during the bad times.

I doubt the people of the USA will accept the same sort of socialistic deal. It's not really in the people's or the nation's nature (although I wonder about the BerniBots)

I notice that you've not commented at all about all the rest of that post.

You will be amazed how many people, especially younger people, are fine with the idea of democratic socialism. The you're-on-your-own libertarian approach is losing steam.
 
Well according to the OECD the Danish also work less hours than Americans. Danes work on average 1436 hours/year while Americans work 1789 hours/year. A 353 hour difference. This is true for most of Europe, Europeans value work-life balance and quality of life far more than Americans.

You will be amazed how many people, especially younger people, are fine with the idea of democratic socialism. The you're-on-your-own libertarian approach is losing steam.

If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.
 
If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.

I don't live by slogans because too often they're overly simplistic, and in many cases just wrong. For example, do you really believe I have no brain if I don't think suspected terrorists should be allowed to buy semi-automatic assault rifles? Do you really believe I have no brain if I think that imposing bronze-age biblical morality on people in a 21st century secular democracy is incredibly immoral and stupid? Do you really believe I have no brain if I don't think that eroding all environmental regulations so that corporations are free to literally dump poison and toxic waste anywhere that isn't private property is a good idea?

No, sorry. Conservatism is in many ways brain-less.
 
If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.

I'm fifty-nine and I'm confident that I'll be a proud, patriotic, freedom-loving liberal until the day I die. (Those who are scornful of my presence shouldn't get their hopes up, as I plan on being around for quite some time yet.) And I have no problem with what I would call "true conservatives" — people who support …

  • a fiscal policy that carefully husbands our nation's resources to make wise investments in health, education, infrastructure, a clean environment, and scientific and technological research and doesn't instead expend them on wasteful and unproductive tax cut giveaways to wealthy households
  • a prudent foreign policy that patiently works to secure peace and prosperity around the world and doesn't advocate very expensive and irresponsibly dangerous overseas misadventures
  • economic policies that work to offer opportunities for enrichment to lower- and middle-class Americans and doesn't describe grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality as the natural consequence of differences in work ethic and lifestyle
  • an immigration policy that recognizes and values the wide variety of benefits brought to the US by those who come here seeking a better life for themselves and their families and doesn't instead cynically inspire nativist disparagement and even bigoted hatred of "aliens"
  • reasonable gun control policies that protect the right to self-defense and legitimate sporting interests but at the same time operate to diminish as much as is reasonably possible the threats to public safety inherent in the sale and possession of firearms, especially semi-automatic rifles that can be used as instruments of mass murder by violent and mentally unstable individuals
 
I'm fifty-nine and I'm confident that I'll be a proud, patriotic, freedom-loving liberal until the day I die. (Those who are scornful of my presence shouldn't get their hopes up, as I plan on being around for quite some time yet.) And I have no problem with what I would call "true conservatives" — people who support …

  • a fiscal policy that carefully husbands our nation's resources to make wise investments in health, education, infrastructure, a clean environment, and scientific and technological research and doesn't instead expend them on wasteful and unproductive tax cut giveaways to wealthy households
  • a prudent foreign policy that patiently works to secure peace and prosperity around the world and doesn't advocate very expensive and irresponsibly dangerous overseas misadventures
  • economic policies that work to offer opportunities for enrichment to lower- and middle-class Americans and doesn't describe grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality as the natural consequence of differences in work ethic and lifestyle
  • an immigration policy that recognizes and values the wide variety of benefits brought to the US by those who come here seeking a better life for themselves and their families and doesn't instead cynically inspire nativist disparagement and even bigoted hatred of "aliens"
  • reasonable gun control policies that protect the right to self-defense and legitimate sporting interests but at the same time operate to diminish as much as is reasonably possible the threats to public safety inherent in the sale and possession of firearms, especially semi-automatic rifles that can be used as instruments of mass murder by violent and mentally unstable individuals
mmi,
I agree with most of your belives. They are noble and patriotic, and I commend you for thinking that way. I believe that the government does not have a "fiscal policy that carefully husbands our nation's resources to make wise investments" as you say. And I believe as you do that "wise investments" by the government are needed to do the things you believe. The problem is that we do not make wise investments when we borrow excessibly to invest. That is what the government is doing, they are borrowing over 19 trillion dollars. That much borrowing is not in our interest and is not part of our (the government's) "resources" as you say.
Please think about this good and extensively.
Thanks,
Govreducer
 
the sequester resulted in me being kicked me out on my ass when my boss lost his grant. for that and other reasons, i don't support shrinking the public sector. i definitely support reprioritization, though. for example, we should not be wasting money on Middle Eastern wars.
When you say "the public sector" what do yuo mean? What is the pubic sector? Is it a sector of the economy that produces goods and services which increases the economic activity of the nation? And if so, who are the investors for that sector?
 
I'm fifty-nine and I'm confident that I'll be a proud, patriotic, freedom-loving liberal until the day I die.

freedom loving liberal?? a liberal opposes freedom and supports government! Do you understand these basics?


Notice how liberty is presented as the opposite of government:

Thomas Jefferson-
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
 
Back
Top Bottom