• 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]

JoeTheEconomist said:
Employees aren't the problem. It is entitlements. Interest and entitlements are projected to grow to 100% of revenue.
Click to expand...

I agree, Joe. When you add the sixteen percent for the military and the six percent for interest on the debt to that two-thirds for transfers, yer up to around 82% of 2015 spending. That leaves about $660 billion on the table.

We were talking about the Department of Education, so I'll point to a few items in its $67 billion 2015 discretionary budget. Ya have Pell grants at $31 billion, school nutrition programs cost $16.5, and
Head Start is $8.6 billion. That's $56 billion, 84%. Now some of those costs are for personnel, especially in Head Start. But my point is that when you go department by department, a considerable portion of those budgets goes to the cost of facilities, equipment, and materials. How much is left? Enough to make much of a dent in federal spending?

Uncle Sam employs 2.1 million civilian workers, and in 2015 their wages and benefits totalled $260 billion, seven percent of the federal budget. So cutting those costs by one percent this year would save $2.6 billion. If you do that every year until you've cut the workforce by, say, a fourth, yer talking about $65 billion, 1.8% of the budget. That is indeed a lot of money, but you'd then arguably be seriously understaffed without a whole lot being gained.

ocean515 said:
Why yes I do have that evidence. But you've indicated you will refuse to read it.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. When have I indicated that I will not consider evidence? I certainly have said, and I will continue to say, that I will not accept lengthy reading assignments from RW morons who refuse to summarize or offer relevant excerpts from material published online. I'm dumb enough to expend a considerable amount of my time arguing with those idiots, but I'm not that dumb.

>>do you have any evidence to prove it's only a small percentage that feels that way?

Well, I'm not at this point going to put much effort into this, but I'll at least start.

Here's an increasing percentage, now up to 62%, saying they are at least somewhat dissatisfied with the size and power of the federal gubmint. I will acknowledge that this doesn't indicate whether they want it smaller/less powerful or larger/more powerful, but I'll let readers draw their own conclusion.



Several years ago, when the economy was in a crisis and people were looking to gubmint to resolve it, the percentages on preferring a larger or smaller gubmint were about equal. Now, smaller is up by fifteen points.



Now, none of this speaks directly to the question of whether or not Americans think there are "enough government agencies and departments," but I'm satisfied at this point and invite you to post the evidence you claim is in yer possession. Why you didn't just post it is anyone's guess.

>>Just more LW blather and unsupported opinion.

As opposed to yer unsupported RW blather claiming that "a large percentage of the population believes there are not enough government agencies and departments." Large, eh? Good luck with that. Thirty-eight percent is arguably "large," I suppose, but in a vote it would lose badly to fifty-three. So how is that a serious impediment to cutting, cutting, cutting the number of federal agencies and departments?

>>Hint: How many millions voted for BS? He's a small government guy, right?

Thanks for the hint. BS? I figure yer somehow referring to the president. Ah yes, Barry Soetoro.

I think it was around 65 million in 2012. And of course yer dead wrong, as you almost always are. As I've noted here repeatedly, real federal spending dropped by eight percent 2009-14. I suppose the RW counter is that it was Republicans in Congress that prevented him from implementing the BIG expansion he prefers. But of course, as I have again noted repeatedly, Congress authorized one percent less than he requested over those years, and then his tight management practices reduced actual outlays by another five percent.

>>You are dismissed.

Nah, ya can't do that here. I'm shoving my evidence right in yer face or down yer throat or however you'd like to take it. Are you still laughing?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheEconomist said:
Employees aren't the problem. It is entitlements. Interest and entitlements are projected to grow to 100% of revenue.
Click to expand...

Where's the problem? Just borrow whatever you need.
 
joG said:
Where's the problem? Just borrow whatever you need.
Click to expand...

exactly, why should the Feds have to be bothered with balancing a budget the way families, businesses, states, cities, counties, and school districts do !! It's so much easier to borrow the money and let the next generation pay it back!!
 
James972 said:
exactly, why should the Feds have to be bothered with balancing a budget the way families, businesses, states, cities, counties, and school districts do !! It's so much easier to borrow the money and let the next generation pay it back!!
Click to expand...

Brilliant: spend! Spend!! SPEND!!!
 

Not only a good idea but probably necessary in the long run. The federal government should retain the defense, state, treasury and justice departments. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can.
 
mmi said:
How would Pell grants and student loans be administered?
Click to expand...

They would no longer exist or be sent to the states if the states want them.


The source of most corruption in federal government is in the process of bribing the states to do what it wants. The practice should be banned forever.
 
fmw said:
Not only a good idea but probably necessary in the long run. The federal government should retain the defense, state, treasury and justice departments. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can.
Click to expand...

But how can we the people petition for a government reduction?
 
joG said:
Brilliant: spend! Spend!! SPEND!!!
Click to expand...
Do you think there are enough people thinking like us to petition for a referendum on government reduction?
 
Govreducer said:
Do you think there are enough people thinking like us to petition for a referendum on government reduction?
Click to expand...

If we promise them fun and fantasy? Of course! Just don't call it socialism, though, even that captivated an astounding number. Free Cinnamon-rolls for all!!!
 
Govreducer said:
But how can we the people petition for a government reduction?
Click to expand...

By stopping the practice of reelecting the cretins that are in office. We have to replace them with people that have some sense of the common good. They won't change by themselves. We have to change them. All that from someone who no longer votes because he understands that it doesn't fix anything. Get the people interested in true government reform and I'll return to the polls.
 

I have put some thought to this and the following can be done over a period of 10 or 20, or 30 years, whatever it takes:
These are the current federal department:

1. Agriculture
2. Commerce
3. Defense
4. Education
5. Energy
6. Interior
7. Health and Human Services
8. Homeland Security
9. Housing and Urban Development
10. Justice
11. Labor
12. State
13. Transportation
14. Treasury
15. Veteran Affairs
16. Environmental Protection Agency
17. Small Business Administration
18. National Science Foundation
19. Social Security Administration

Now, lets combine some of these which we feel can provide the same services combined as they each provide now.

1. Interstate Commerce and Agriculture can do the services of the following current agencies and departments:
a. Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Small Business, etc.
2. Education, Labor, and Health can do the services stated plus
a. Housing and Community Services, etc.
b. Environmental Protection, etc.
3. Defense, can do also services such as
a. National Intelligence, Space (NASA), Homeland Security, etc.
4. Justice
5. Veterans Administration
6. Social Security
7. Treasury
8. State, can do also other services done now by numerous agencies.

Maybe we can stretch these and make them ten departments, maybe.
The first department above may be called "Commerce and Interior Department"
The second may be named "Labor and Health Department
The third may be called "Defense" which is one we need for sure to keep our democratic system of government
 
mmi said:
Public colleges and universities could survive without those programs, and the well-endowed private ones would of course stay in business as well. But many other private schools would shut down. Are you ready to accept that?
Click to expand...

Those programs make purchasers of college education price insensitive, but provide large sums of easy money for the purchase. Ergo, we get skyrocketing tuition, fueled by skyrocketing administrative bloat (Right wing concurrence Left wing concurrence). We may see a few shut downs. A more common effect, however, would be reductions in tuition, as colleges were forced to compete for price-sensitive students.


:shrug: that would be up to the State. Some states would probably want to retain centralized control, while others may wish to federate it down so as to allow the district to shape solutions that best meet the particular needs of their student body.

Do you think that's how all that oversight and enforcement is handled? Every time there's an issue related to a possible violation of civil rights law related to education, it ends up in court?
Click to expand...

Certainly not. The threat of suit, then as now, would additionally be a restraint.

There's a lot more data than standardized test scores collected.
Click to expand...

And what of it do we need that cannot be collected by the States?

sixteen years experience as a federal employee leads me to agree.
Click to expand...

As a government employee, I was sent on an all-expenses paid, week-long trip to Hawaii. The reason? The end of the fiscal year was coming up, and we needed to make sure we spent all of our budgeted funds, or else we might not get as much the next year. Oh, technically the reason was to "liaise and build relationships", but no one cared who I did that with. Waste in government expenditures comes largely not from exposure to the private sector, but because of the incentives inherent in spending other people's money.

contract workers, with nothing to lose and no career to build, are less than worthless.
Click to expand...

Contractors can be fired - government workers generally can't (or the amount of effort that is required to fire them is prohibitive).

Example: there was a GS-13 at my last place of employment who, due to a series of DUI's, was no longer able to even access the building. Unfortunately, they failed to appropriately handle the paperwork. As a result, this guy was stuck in a sort of administrative limbo where he couldn't work, but couldn't be fired. His job was to hang out at home and collect just shy of 6 figures. They had been trying to solve this problem for about two years by the time I left. We had a contractor who wouldn't stop goofing off in the office. He was warned twice, and then let go.


:roll: certainly not.

Government employees do not produce. We are direct drains on the system. What we can, do, however, is protect and enable the structures that allow production to occur. When we do this, we are indirectly net positive. A police officer, for example, does not produce, transport, or sell any products - but his provision of a security guarantee and contract enforcement allows others to do so. The cop himself is a net cost of $45,000 to the system, but that expenditure enables more than $45,000 of economic activity to take place.


Yup.

It may or may not be a good idea to hack away at that pile
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't think we really have a choice. Either we choose how to reduce expenditures going forward now, or those choices will be made for us in a less controllable manner later.
 
fmw said:
All that from someone who no longer votes because he understands that it doesn't fix anything.
Click to expand...

you sound very very confused!

Voting Repubican gets us a very very different Supreme Court. Do you understand??

Voting Republican gets us debt ceilings, shut downs, caps , and Balanced Budget Amendments. Do you understand?
 
cpwill said:
We may see a few shut downs.
Click to expand...

First, those programs are not going to end. If they did, what makes you think there wouldn't be a lot of private colleges and universities going out of business?

>>A more common effect, however, would be reductions in tuition, as colleges were forced to compete for price-sensitive students.

What makes you think those schools wouldn't simply lose out to public institutions?

>>Some states would probably want to retain centralized control, while others may wish to federate it down so as to allow the district to shape solutions that best meet the particular needs of their student body.

I'd say yer missing the point. How would programs for low-income and special needs students function more efficiently with dozens of state and local agencies responsible for their administration? Don't very large corporations have a lot of centralized control? Does each McDonald's franchise handle its own purchasing and distribution processes, menu development and planning strategies, and quality control programs?

>>The threat of suit [to enforce civil rights laws related to education], then as now, would additionally be a restraint.

But it would, then as now, be rarely employed.

>>what of it do we need that cannot be collected by the States?

In the first place, there would be a very confusing assortment of fifty different data sets. How could those be integrated effectively? And again, a tremendous amount of inefficiency would result from all that … duplication. Isn't that one of the things you guys love to complain about?

>>The end of the fiscal year was coming up, and we needed to make sure we spent all of our budgeted funds, or else we might not get as much the next year.

Then that agency was very poorly administered in that respect. I haven't seen it happening in the work I'm involved in. Every August and September in recent years, there's been a lot of turmoil as funds are shifted from those areas that still have some money to those that are about to run out.

>>Waste in government expenditures comes largely not from exposure to the private sector

And this is true … because you say it is.

>>but because of the incentives inherent in spending other people's money.

In my experience, we're barely able to squeak by with the money that's being appropriated. And in my twenty-five years in the private sector, I saw plenty of waste, inefficiency, and stupidity. Those who worship at the alter of Private Sector Enterprise like to say that that can't happen because those companies get put of business by more effectively managed competitors. I didn't see that happening. They just didn't operate as well as they would have otherwise.

What makes you think consumers are so judicious in their purchases as to force businesses to do everything properly? You talk about "incentives inherent in spending other people's money." What effect do heavily taxpayer-subsidised national television advertising campaigns have on private sector spending decisions? As the price of gold has dropped twenty percent over the past five years, I've been told many, many times that I need to be buying it every chance I get. You see all that private sector activity as providing a greater social benefit than the work done by the FTC?

>>Contractors can be fired - government workers generally can't (or the amount of effort that is required to fire them is prohibitive).

Nobody on my team is even close to deserving to be fired. Every damn one of them is a god damn patriotic public servant who cares very deeply about the work we're involved in. Fwiw, I didn't see that level of dedication in the private sector. Were the men in yer Marine unit operating inefficiently and indifferent to the quality of their performance because they were "spending other people's money"?

>>Government employees do not produce. We are direct drains on the system.

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference that's based entirely on ideology. Imo, I am producing statistics that are used by private and public sector analysts. Cops produce public safety. How is that "a drain on the system"? What about public school teachers and administrators? NIH and CDC researchers?

>>Either we choose how to reduce expenditures going forward now, or those choices will be made for us in a less controllable manner later.

Real federal spending fell eight percent 2009-14, so it looks like you should be happy with Obummer in that regard. Perhaps we should continue to benefit from that kind of management skill and leadership.
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
Voting Republican gets us debt ceilings
Click to expand...

The debt ceiling was first instituted in 1917, with a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress.

>>shut downs

Yep, and the last one cost us $24 billion and proved to be very unpopular with voters, with 39% blaming Republicans and 19% holding Democrats responsible. Last fall, Mr. Boehner cut a deal to allow the gubmint to continue to operate until next March — "cleaning the barn," as he put it. We'll see if Mr Ryan will decide to again defend America's credit worthiness rather than surrender to the destructive demands of the Eff Up caucus.

>>caps

Congress has failed to meet those requirements, and the resulting sequestrations have damaged our military.

>>Balanced Budget Amendments

Not ever gonna happen.

>>Do you understand?

I know you sure as hell don't.
 
James972 said:
you sound very very confused!

Voting Repubican gets us a very very different Supreme Court. Do you understand??

Voting Republican gets us debt ceilings, shut downs, caps , and Balanced Budget Amendments. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Of course I understand. If only I had seen republicans do something to fix something in the past I would believe they would the same in the future. Same with the democrats.
 
fmw said:
Of course I understand. If only I had seen republicans do something to fix something in the past I would believe they would the same in the future. Same with the democrats.
Click to expand...

totally stupid!!! when the electorate sends equal numbers from each party to DC of course nothing gets done. This is something a child could grasp. What is wrong with you? Do you think SCOTUS appointments are similar from each party? Republicans were 100% against Obamacare and Stimulus. 1+1=2
 
mmi said:
The debt ceiling was first instituted in 1917, with a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

dear, in 1917 Democrats were responsible like Republicans are today!! Do you understand?
 
mmi said:
>>shut downs

Yep, and the last one cost us $24 billion and proved to be very unpopular with voters, with
Click to expand...


subject is not what was popular but what Republicans did to control govt!!Now do you understand?
 
mmi said:
>>caps

Congress has failed to meet those requirements, and the resulting sequestrations have damaged our military.
.
Click to expand...

subject is not what congress did but what Republicans did( opposed by Democrats) to control govt growth. Do you understand?
 
mmi said:
>>Balanced Budget Amendments

Not ever gonna happen.

>>Do you understand?

I know you sure as hell don't.
Click to expand...

dear, subject is not whether it will happen but what Republicans did to try to control govt and how Democrats opposed. FYI Newts BBA passed House and fell 1 short in Senate thank to evil Democrats. Todat debt would be $0 not $20 trillion, Catching on now?
 
James972 said:
dear, in 1917 Democrats were responsible like Republicans are today
Click to expand...

little darling, I once again showed yer tripe to be what it is — a steaming pile of it. You said that Republicans created the debt ceiling, which of course is a very stupid legislative concept and so one you approve of, and you respond with nothing but more worthless blather. Total evasion.

James972 said:
subject is not what was popular but what Republicans did to control govt
Click to expand...

Popularity isn't really the issue, sweetheart, it's the $24 billion dollar price tag taxpayers got stuck with to pay from Scruz Loose's temper tantrum.

James972 said:
subject is not what congress did but what Republicans did( opposed by Democrats) to control govt growth. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

It all took place in Congress, precious. What is it about that that you can't understand? All of it, I'm sure.

James972 said:
dear, subject is not whether it will happen but what Republicans did to try to control govt and how Democrats opposed. FYI Newts BBA passed House and fell 1 short in Senate thank to evil Democrats. Todat debt would be $0 not $20 trillion
Click to expand...

honey boo-boo, all the debt resulted from policies you support. And the national debt was already five trillion when that amendment was voted on. The deciding vote against came from Mark Hatfield (R-OR).

He and another WAR HERO, George S. McGovern (D-SD, volunteered and flew thirty-five combat missions over Nazi-occupied Europe, awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal with three clusters) introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill in 1970 that would have ended all US military operations in Vietnam by the end of that year, a blessing, as it would have been, for the 3304 American service personnel who were subsequently killed there. There aren't many Republicans like Hatfield (a landing craft officer at Iwo Jima and Okinawa) in the Congress these days.

>>Catching on now?

I caught on to the material you peddle right from the start. It's all very easily swept away and dismissed. For example, are you even aware that constitutional amendments require thirty-eight states for ratification, and that a BBA would never get that many? And how could the Bush tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq, which combined to add $2.134 trillion dollars to the debt 2002-08, have been funded if the amendment had been ratified? Get a clue, pet.
 

There used to be a lot of moderates in both parties and things could get done. Those moderates are now pretty much gone, leaving only the far left and the far right. I, for one, long for more moderates in both parties instead of the two extremes so that we can get things done. I don't want either extreme to have full power and neither do a lot of others. That's why the electorate votes half and half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…