Ideal US national budget

[Masterhawk]

This is my opinion of what the government budget should look like based on this image Source: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/


The blue and orange sections should be moved to state level to allow each state to determine benefits. Military spending should be cut at least in half. We are not at war with another nation, why do we need to spend 16% on the military? And to top it all off, the republicans want to spend even more on the military whilst making a very low tax.

Both international affairs, energy and environment, and science should be increased to at least 10%. The US government needs to increase its foreign aid to other countries, particularly african countries. The government should also get its best scientists to cooperate with private companies in developing an alternate energy source, preferably one which powers individual homes rather than it being from a power plant. NASA would be able to make much more progress if they didn't only get only 1% of america's budget. A budget increase for NASA will allow america to achieve so much more in the realm of space. Education could also use a budget increase or the country could move towards privatization. Currently, private schools are for the rich and upper middle class and are very expensive. Currently, public schools have less quality because the schools are funded by tax dollars and have no incentive to improve. Private schools on the other hand strive to provide children education for their parents' money. If the education is not ediquate, the parent finds another school, simple as that. Public education can then be renamed "welfare education" for low income families.

What are your ideas for an ideal government budget?

 

[Orly?]

What are your ideas for an ideal government budget?

Definately not cutting our military budget in half, and I don't know about your personal power plants idea. Things like that are more efficient on a larger scale, like most production.

 

[joG]

This is my opinion of what the government budget should look like based on this image Source: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/
View attachment 67200985

The blue and orange sections should be moved to state level to allow each state to determine benefits. Military spending should be cut at least in half. We are not at war with another nation, why do we need to spend 16% on the military? And to top it all off, the republicans want to spend even more on the military whilst making a very low tax.

Both international affairs, energy and environment, and science should be increased to at least 10%. The US government needs to increase its foreign aid to other countries, particularly african countries. The government should also get its best scientists to cooperate with private companies in developing an alternate energy source, preferably one which powers individual homes rather than it being from a power plant. NASA would be able to make much more progress if they didn't only get only 1% of america's budget. A budget increase for NASA will allow america to achieve so much more in the realm of space. Education could also use a budget increase or the country could move towards privatization. Currently, private schools are for the rich and upper middle class and are very expensive. Currently, public schools have less quality because the schools are funded by tax dollars and have no incentive to improve. Private schools on the other hand strive to provide children education for their parents' money. If the education is not ediquate, the parent finds another school, simple as that. Public education can then be renamed "welfare education" for low income families.

What are your ideas for an ideal government budget?

Thank you for proposing this topic, though, I would probably restructure what the government should do considerably. For that reason the spending would look quite different. In principal all goods that are private in an economic sense should be produced by private entities and paid for by those that consume the product. That would remove most social programs from the mandate. In compensation some form of guaranteed income should go to every American citizen. This would be cheaper and would free a large number of public officials and workers into the open market, where their productivity would on average be higher and the allocation of their labor improve general welfare.

Where I am totally with you, is in the international area, where I would want to see much more input by our government. Science spending might be similarly be increased. Military can be reduced, when we have succeeded in establishing a general international system that takes responsibility for protecting populations world wide and enforces peace. Till then it would cost more to reduce spending than it could ever save.

 

[Masterhawk]

Definately not cutting our military budget in half, and I don't know about your personal power plants idea. Things like that are more efficient on a larger scale, like most production.

Why? We don't need to spend that much on the military. We are not at war nor are we in a standoff. Conservatives might use isis as an excuse to increase military spending but all countries needs to defeat terrorist groups is enough foreign aid to stabilize the country, advisors who promote equality (almost all wars in africa can be tied with discrimination), and some military equipment (not enough to threaten decreasing spending by at least 50%).

 

[gdgyva]

This is my opinion of what the government budget should look like based on this image Source: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/
View attachment 67200985

The blue and orange sections should be moved to state level to allow each state to determine benefits. Military spending should be cut at least in half. We are not at war with another nation, why do we need to spend 16% on the military? And to top it all off, the republicans want to spend even more on the military whilst making a very low tax.

Both international affairs, energy and environment, and science should be increased to at least 10%. The US government needs to increase its foreign aid to other countries, particularly african countries. The government should also get its best scientists to cooperate with private companies in developing an alternate energy source, preferably one which powers individual homes rather than it being from a power plant. NASA would be able to make much more progress if they didn't only get only 1% of america's budget. A budget increase for NASA will allow america to achieve so much more in the realm of space. Education could also use a budget increase or the country could move towards privatization. Currently, private schools are for the rich and upper middle class and are very expensive. Currently, public schools have less quality because the schools are funded by tax dollars and have no incentive to improve. Private schools on the other hand strive to provide children education for their parents' money. If the education is not ediquate, the parent finds another school, simple as that. Public education can then be renamed "welfare education" for low income families.

What are your ideas for an ideal government budget?

And when something happens around the world, what will your response be?

Say Russia decides to annex Scandinavia....and we have depleted our defense. You okay with that happening? You aren't going to be one of those yelling that we should then be doing something to help them, right?

Or if China decides that they want all the Indonesian islands....you are okay with other militaries being able to call the shots on the planet, right?

I have zero issue with us cutting our defense in half...as long as everyone agrees that if problems arise around the world, they handle their own issues....we won't be sending in our warships, navy, or marines.

And very few people are willing to actually think that way....

Are you one of them?

 

[David G]

I too have different priorities than the President proposes.

But whatever you think the budget should look like in 10 years... let me offer a caveat. Drastic change - even good change - is often quite disruptive. Sometimes so disruptive as to substantially offset the benefits of the change.

So, yes, I'd like to see us cut our defense budget. As a % of GDP, I'd like to see it more like 2/3 of the existing - or so - in 10 years. But I'd like to accomplish that change gradually. So that Defense Dept. planners can know what the expectations will be, and have time to transition smoothly.

As for the notion of moving a bunch of the spending to the states... there are issues. Look at the history to see what they are. Anytime you think you've got a 'better idea'... well, you might. But first, think long and hard about what the inevitable Unintended Consequences might be. And look at Best Practices - from other companies, governments, countries.

I meant to mention, too, that part of making any such changes is providing better oversight. If all you do is cut the defense budget, for instance, in today's climate all that would mean is the the troops would suffer first. Defense contractors with over-priced 'cost-plus' contracts would be the last to feel the pinch. Which takes us back to Congress. Which takes us back to Acton. The present imbalance has taken several decades to accrue. It'll take a while to correct... if we are able to manage it again.

"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton <Keep in mind that he's British, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>

 

[DA60]

Add one time, $1 trillion dollar payment to DA60.

 

[Orly?]

Why? We don't need to spend that much on the military. We are not at war nor are we in a standoff. Conservatives might use isis as an excuse to increase military spending but all countries needs to defeat terrorist groups is enough foreign aid to stabilize the country, advisors who promote equality (almost all wars in africa can be tied with discrimination), and some military equipment (not enough to threaten decreasing spending by at least 50%).

Because we need to dominate the entire world!!

As soon a s we let slip our total dominance many of them will come for us..

 

[mmi]

As soon a s we let slip our total dominance many of them will come for us

Yeah, but they only want people like you. I say we shouldn't wait — just hand the imperialists over.

 

[Fenton]

Why? We don't need to spend that much on the military. We are not at war nor are we in a standoff. Conservatives might use isis as an excuse to increase military spending but all countries needs to defeat terrorist groups is enough foreign aid to stabilize the country, advisors who promote equality (almost all wars in africa can be tied with discrimination), and some military equipment (not enough to threaten decreasing spending by at least 50%).

No Conservatives believe the US is a stabilizing force, a force of good that beats back true imperialist Nations and ideologies.

And theyre RIGHT.

If you could cut the US Military in half or its spending in half tomorrrow, the World would be a exponentially more dangerous place the day after

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No Conservatives believe the US is a stabilizing force, a force of good that beats back true imperialist Nations and ideologies.

And theyre RIGHT.

If you could cut the US Military in half or its spending in half tomorrrow, the World would be a exponentially more dangerous place the day after

 

[nothanks700]

This is my opinion of what the government budget should look like based on this image Source: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/
View attachment 67200985

The blue and orange sections should be moved to state level to allow each state to determine benefits. Military spending should be cut at least in half. We are not at war with another nation, why do we need to spend 16% on the military? And to top it all off, the republicans want to spend even more on the military whilst making a very low tax.

Both international affairs, energy and environment, and science should be increased to at least 10%. The US government needs to increase its foreign aid to other countries, particularly african countries. The government should also get its best scientists to cooperate with private companies in developing an alternate energy source, preferably one which powers individual homes rather than it being from a power plant. NASA would be able to make much more progress if they didn't only get only 1% of america's budget. A budget increase for NASA will allow america to achieve so much more in the realm of space. Education could also use a budget increase or the country could move towards privatization. Currently, private schools are for the rich and upper middle class and are very expensive. Currently, public schools have less quality because the schools are funded by tax dollars and have no incentive to improve. Private schools on the other hand strive to provide children education for their parents' money. If the education is not ediquate, the parent finds another school, simple as that. Public education can then be renamed "welfare education" for low income families.

What are your ideas for an ideal government budget?

I like these ideas. Especially a reduction in military spending. This is hard to do though, considering how long and cumbersome it would be to reduce all of our military installations around the world. But we should certainly start down that path. I agree more funding to education and STEM fields is desperately needed, this will get us ahead in 2 decades, not buying a new tank. We can not just throw money at African countries however, this is akin to giving a drug addict money- what do you think they will spend it on? I don't mean to say anything bad about African countries, their governments just aren't stable enough to use the money wisely. I think it takes the World Bank to spur growth and stability in countries in Africa, no necessarily US intervention.

 

[gdgyva]

I like these ideas. Especially a reduction in military spending. This is hard to do though, considering how long and cumbersome it would be to reduce all of our military installations around the world. But we should certainly start down that path. I agree more funding to education and STEM fields is desperately needed, this will get us ahead in 2 decades, not buying a new tank. We can not just throw money at African countries however, this is akin to giving a drug addict money- what do you think they will spend it on? I don't mean to say anything bad about African countries, their governments just aren't stable enough to use the money wisely. I think it takes the World Bank to spur growth and stability in countries in Africa, no necessarily US intervention.

You didn't answer the prior questions

If you cut the military, are you okay with other countries like Russia, China, and North Korea expanding their borders and annexing other countries?

Are you okay being an isolationist?

 

[nothanks700]

You didn't answer the prior questions

If you cut the military, are you okay with other countries like Russia, China, and North Korea expanding their borders and annexing other countries?

Are you okay being an isolationist?

Isolationism is the rather extreme of cutting military funding. We spend an outrageous amount on our military, more than every other country in the world combined, all to maintain our hegemony status. I don't think we need to be a hegemony anymore, but I am not for isolationism, especially since isolationism is all but impossible in our global economy.

Where would North Korea expand their borders? We don't have to completely stop foreign military aid to countries like South Korea (who have other allies anyway), and obviously North Korea is no match for China, nor would North Korea even try to expand into China because they are allies. Russia is the same deal. I really don't care if Russia or China annexes some countries, why does it really matter? And, again, I am not discussing cutting all funding, other nations would have to contribute more resources if they wanted to stop expansionism of these various countries.

 

[gdgyva]

Isolationism is the rather extreme of cutting military funding. We spend an outrageous amount on our military, more than every other country in the world combined, all to maintain our hegemony status. I don't think we need to be a hegemony anymore, but I am not for isolationism, especially since isolationism is all but impossible in our global economy.

Where would North Korea expand their borders? We don't have to completely stop foreign military aid to countries like South Korea (who have other allies anyway), and obviously North Korea is no match for China, nor would North Korea even try to expand into China because they are allies. Russia is the same deal. I really don't care if Russia or China annexes some countries, why does it really matter? And, again, I am not discussing cutting all funding, other nations would have to contribute more resources if they wanted to stop expansionism of these various countries.

The only thing that has stopped other countries from expanding their border, power, and influence has been us

If you think France, England, NATO, Japan, Australia, or the rest are suddenly going to spend 30-40% more on defense every year, I doubt that will occur.

So no one will be there to stop countries from flexing their so called muscles

I have no issue with that by the way.....

As long as we are all on the same page....and let them deal with their own problems.....and don't try to intervene when we have cut our defense to the bone

 

[nothanks700]

The only thing that has stopped other countries from expanding their border, power, and influence has been us

If you think France, England, NATO, Japan, Australia, or the rest are suddenly going to spend 30-40% more on defense every year, I doubt that will occur.

So no one will be there to stop countries from flexing their so called muscles

I have no issue with that by the way.....

As long as we are all on the same page....and let them deal with their own problems.....and don't try to intervene when we have cut our defense to the bone

If they see it as a threat, and realize they can no longer rely on the US, they will. Russia annexing Croatia could be seen as a threat to the EU for a variety of reasons, but hardly impacts the US apart from some trading stalls due to the US trying, as always, to direct our "superior" democracy and "evolved" thought on the rest of the world. If Russia doesn't like gay people, that's really up to them, not to a sovereign nation to freak out about, although I don't care and would even encourage American citizens to protest, countries shouldn't be getting involved in that sort of thing, it doesn't exactly do less harm than good. I'm getting off track, point is military intervention and trade embargoes may be necessary for North Korea, or third-Reich Germany, but not for a countries that are still homophobic. Yeah, I don't like it either, but we've got plenty of problems here without getting involved in the social policies of other countries. Ok...sorry, that was just a rant.

 

[fmw]

The federal administration should have the departments of defense, state, treasury and justice. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can.

 

[mmi]

The federal administration should have the departments of defense, state, treasury and justice. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can.

The delivery of services associated with insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation requires a national component in the management structure to be executed effectively. The same is true of regulatory agencies involved in environmental and consumer protection, nuclear safety, space exploration, scientific research and development, etc. That doesn't leave a whole lot on money on the table — maybe $300 billion. Federal aid to education, nutritional, housing, and energy assistance, community, economic, and labor force development, etc. In my judgement, federal involvement is warranted in all those areas as well.

 

[fmw]

The delivery of services associated with insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation requires a national component in the management structure to be executed effectively.

The federal government doesn't execute anything effectively so I reject that concept completely.

The same is true of regulatory agencies involved in environmental and consumer protection, nuclear safety, space exploration, scientific research and development, etc. That doesn't leave a whole lot on money on the table — maybe $300 billion. Federal aid to education, nutritional, housing, and energy assistance, community, economic, and labor force development, etc. In my judgement, federal involvement is warranted in all those areas as well.

All of these things belong in the trash can. If the states would want to resurrect any of them, it would be their choice. None of them belongs within the role of federal government.

 

[shagg]

We could easily cut military spending without affecting the actual military. So much of that budget is wasted and has no impact on the state of our forces. But past attempts to modernize their book keeping have been met with insurmountable internal resistance, and have all failed, but not without racking up close to a billion dollars spent in each attempt.

https://shadowproof.com/2014/05/15/pentagon-finances-still-unauditable/
Don't Ask the Pentagon Where Its Money Goes
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Sen. Bernie Sanders Exposes Bloated Military and Intelligence Spending
Decades later, military still unable to account for its spending - News - Stripes
Giant Pentagon Budget Is Unauditable Year After Year

 

[Masterhawk]

And when something happens around the world, what will your response be?

Say Russia decides to annex Scandinavia....and we have depleted our defense. You okay with that happening? You aren't going to be one of those yelling that we should then be doing something to help them, right?

Or if China decides that they want all the Indonesian islands....you are okay with other militaries being able to call the shots on the planet, right?

I have zero issue with us cutting our defense in half...as long as everyone agrees that if problems arise around the world, they handle their own issues....we won't be sending in our warships, navy, or marines.

And very few people are willing to actually think that way....

Are you one of them?

We can always increase out military budget if something goes wrong but most of your hypothetical situations are far fetched

 

[gdgyva]

We can always increase out military budget if something goes wrong but most of your hypothetical situations are far fetched

Far fetched?

Maybe you are looking at a different world than am I....

land, resources, and minerals are going to be more and more important ......

There have always been conquering nations......

We just slowed them down in the last 80 some odd years

 

[David G]

The federal government doesn't execute anything effectively so I reject that concept completely..

This is demonstrably false. If you don't know that, you have a lot of catching up to do before you can comment productively.

 

[fmw]

This is demonstrably false. If you don't know that, you have a lot of catching up to do before you can comment productively.

Perhaps your blinders need some adjustment.

 

[David G]

Perhaps your blinders need some adjustment.

Do you really need examples of government programs that have performed well? I think you have placed the blinders on the wrong equine.