• 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!

What Government Programs Would YOU Cut?

Anti-Party

Anti-Party

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
145
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Too much spending and too much taxation. The Right Wing is screaming for cuts. Here is your chance to state what government programs you think should be cut. It can be a whole cut, a partial cut, or just a reform.​
 
The video game Americas Army would be one of my first cuts. Yes, we tax payers have payed somewhere around $66Million on a VIDEO GAME.

America's Army
 
DESC - 1811 Eastlake

Public housing for drunks. Drunks get a free place to live. They can have other drunks over for parties. They can get beer at the lobby counter. (Not sure if this is state or federal, can't find the info)
 
I would start with the 50 billion in foriegn aid, then eliminate the department of education 79 billion, national endowment for the arts 150 million, NPR 445 million, 65 billion in non defense r and d, department of agriculture 29 billion, department of urban development 48 billion, department of energy 42 billion and national science foundation 8 billion for starters. There I just saved the fed 321.595 billion and didn't touch any entitlements or constutionalitional spending.
 
YoungConserv said:
I would start with the 50 billion in foriegn aid, then eliminate the department of education 79 billion, national endowment for the arts 150 million, NPR 445 million, 65 billion in non defense r and d, department of agriculture 29 billion, department of urban development 48 billion, department of energy 42 billion and national science foundation 8 billion for starters. There I just saved the fed 321.595 billion and didn't touch any entitlements or constutionalitional spending.
Click to expand...

Isn't department of education considered an "entitlement"?
 
I'd start with military and education. Big cuts. I believe the military can do more with less, and I do want to do more. In the case of education I believe the private market can more efficiently meet our needs. The lack of decent, cheap private schools (tailored to students' needs) is a result of the bloated education budget.

Everyone that I know on welfare abuses it (lots of people in my poor neighborhood), so that can take some cuts as well.

I don't think healthcare is a right (and treating it as such is counter-productive to healthy living choices). Buh bye Obamacare.

Bail-outs? Nope. We sell GM and let failed banks distribute FDIC.

Farm bill gets cut in half, foreign aid is re-examined and cut back, and no more subsidies to private companies who have no chance of success (even if they're green).
 
Last edited:
YoungConserv said:
No because it is not the primary funder or operator of the education system that would be the states.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was thinking public education as a whole. I agree with most of that and I like that you didn't focus on entitlements ALONE, or even at all. Every time I hear about the Right Wing demanding cuts they always follow with "to entitlement programs" as if it's the only poor spending. I realize it's a majority of spending but I think if we cut enough non entitlement programs they will add up and at least get us headed in the right direction....possibly anyway. Though I believe we need to reform welfare/foodstamps.
 
ecofarm said:
I'd start with military and education. Big cuts. I believe the military can do more with less, and I do want to do more. In the case of education I believe the private market can more efficiently meet our needs. The lack of decent, cheap private schools (tailored to students' needs) is a result of the bloated education budget.

Everyone that I know on welfare abuses it (lots of people in my poor neighborhood), so that can take some cuts as well.

Lastly, I don't think healthcare is a right (and treating it as such is counter-productive to healthy living choices). Buh bye Obamacare.

Bail-outs? Nope. We sell GM and let failed banks distribute FDIC.
Click to expand...

I agree with welfare reform, but not simply cuts. I agree with healthcare but only if we police our ER rooms better because people are getting free healthcare in their anyway and it is much more costly than Obamacare (at this point)

I don't agree with private schools. The reason our schools don't work well is the clash of federal and state power. Private schools would mean the poor people got the cheapest education. Everyone is screaming that the fix for these mass shootings is education. So if poor people get the worst education there will be more mass shootings. And I believe everyone has the right to an equal education. Otherwise we will never be able to break the cycle of "poor breeding the poor"
 
Last edited:
All federal social services spending (with the exception of Social Security...it is too deeply entrenched). All social services should be offered, managed, and most importantly FUNDED at the state level.

ALL redundant fed and state programs. Dept of Education...gone. Dept of Transportation...gone. Health and Human Services...gone.

Cut and redefine military spending. Change business practices with respect to defense contractors. Put onus on weapons development on contractors.

Id also gut congress' funding. Give every elected representative an in-total budget of 400k. Elected representatives would then be responsible to pay for their own travel, staff, office, living expenses, etc.

Change the House election cycle from 2 to 4 years.

Just for starters.
 
YoungConserv said:
No because it is not the primary funder or operator of the education system that would be the states.
Click to expand...

I am an old fart, who remembers our education system way before the formation of the NEA or the federal government forming the education department. When schools systems were strictly run by the states with no funds from the federal government, no regulations from the fed etc. There was a huge difference in the quality of education varying from state to state. But in subjects such as math and science we ranked number one in the world. Now after what, 40 years or more federal involvement in our education system, the USA ranks 23rd in math and 28th in science if I remember the rankings right. Federal involvement has lowered our standards in most states.

What is really strange is me, with only a HS education, I was helping and teaching my daughter in these subjects through her first two years of college. What I learned in HS, she was getting a lot of that for the first time in college. In my opinion all this federal involvement has dumbed down our kids. If our schools were teaching to a standard in the basic subjects they did back in the 50's and early 60's when a HS education was equivalent to an college Associates degree, at least with my experience with my kids and grand kids, there would be no need to try to send everyone to college.
 
Anti-Party said:
Thanks, I was thinking public education as a whole. I agree with most of that and I like that you didn't focus on entitlements ALONE, or even at all. Every time I hear about the Right Wing demanding cuts they always follow with "to entitlement programs" as if it's the only poor spending. I realize it's a majority of spending but I think if we cut enough non entitlement programs they will add up and at least get us headed in the right direction....possibly anyway. Though I believe we need to reform welfare/foodstamps.
Click to expand...

As much as dislike many of the etilments the only plan that makes sense to me is to draw down Ss. You do this by keeping it for those 15 years out not making people like me even start and give everyone else their back in tax credits.
 
Start with cutting ED (the federal department of education) entirely, then go after other unconstitutional income redistribution programs; no federal checks to non-federal employee/contractor individuals, with the possible exception of SS, if kept funded completely outside of the general treasury. Cut (or combine) ALL duplicate of federal programs, even if only to eliminate the added administative overhead. Eliminate all foreign aid as standing budget items, require each such payment to be voted on separately for each year's allocation. Eliminate all commissary and BX/PX facilities inside of the CONUS if any civilian equivalent markets exist within 20 miles. Eliminate GSA. That should just about balance the budget, for now.
 
i'd gut the drug war, and i would redefine the military's mission as one of defense, not of nation building and police actions. that would allow for a considerable scale down.

this wouldn't be enough to fill the gap, but it would be a good start. if in the future a military police action becomes necessary, it should be paid for by the highest income bracket, and this should be automatic. this will have the added benefit of making the movers and shakers less enthusiastic about sending our troops into danger.
 
Helix said:
i'd gut the drug war, and i would redefine the military's mission as one of defense, not of nation building and police actions. that would allow for a considerable scale down.

this wouldn't be enough to fill the gap, but it would be a good start. if in the future a military police action becomes necessary, it should be paid for by the highest income bracket, and this should be automatic. this will have the added benefit of making the movers and shakers less enthusiastic about sending our troops into danger.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional war doesn't really cost us that much money.............................oh wait a minute-->Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

I love your post because SO MANY PEOPLE don't even think about war when they think about spending. Thanks for the post.
 
Everything that does not fall under the feds enumerated powers would be given back to the states, cutting the majority of federal agencies out of existence.

Nobody get's back more in a tax refund than they paid in...
 
Helix said:
i'd gut the drug war, and i would redefine the military's mission as one of defense, not of nation building and police actions. that would allow for a considerable scale down.

this wouldn't be enough to fill the gap, but it would be a good start. if in the future a military police action becomes necessary, it should be paid for by the highest income bracket, and this should be automatic. this will have the added benefit of making the movers and shakers less enthusiastic about sending our troops into danger.
Click to expand...

The bolded part of your statement, NOT applied only to any one budget item but in general, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The less "real" that taxation appears to be (to the average voter) the more income redistribution spending that will be permitted (demanded?). This is a funadimental flaw in our system of gov't, we spend far more that we dare ask for via direct taxation, as we approach having more gov't cash benefit getting voters than taxpaying voters.
 
I would completely dissolve the Department of Education. It has done absolutely nothing for education, and everything for the teacher's unions. The more Mother Government meddles into education, the more ignorant our children get.

I would reduce the Department of Transportation by 90%. This is a state issue, that only needs a few standardizations that relate to interstate matters.

I would reduce the Department of Energy by 90%. This department has become more of a propaganda wing, than an entity that looks for our best interests.

I would completely suspend funding the IMF. Those funds usually go towards countries that hate us anyway.

Of course, ObamaCare would be destroyed. I would laugh while signing the law dissolving this P.O.S. In fact, I would scale back the Department of Health. Private Enterprises have done far more in the positive efforts of health that Mother Government has done.

Total defunding of stupid projects like Michelle Antoinette's "Let's Move" stupidity. Our country is broke. Stop throwing money at projects that anyone with a normal intellect realizes does absolutely nothing to solve a problem.
 
As said above, military spending would drop like a stone. Especially on purchasing more and more elaborate weapons that we don't need. Next, the many subsidies for otherwise profitable companies. There is no need to help them if they are solvent on their own. Probably food production would be excepted. Also end the drug war, which not only saves us police power, but also the court costs, lawyer's fees, and the money we spend incarcerating people. I would remove the tax exempt status of religious organizations. They have to pay income and property tax like any other organizations, thus allowing any such organization to function on the same level, without needing government approval.

I cannot agree with any of the calls for cuts to education in this thread. I can agree that the regulated standards and focus on standardized tests was a mistake and should be ended. But the number one thing that is proven to improve a student's education is smaller classes, with fewer students per teachers. That costs money. That means building more school space and hiring more teachers. The most efficient method of providing that money is through a federal program. Tying that money to scores on a standard test and not allowing teachers any leeway in their curriculum is not the correct path, however.
 
YoungConserv said:
I would start with the 50 billion in foriegn aid, then eliminate the department of education 79 billion, national endowment for the arts 150 million, NPR 445 million, 65 billion in non defense r and d, department of agriculture 29 billion, department of urban development 48 billion, department of energy 42 billion and national science foundation 8 billion for starters. There I just saved the fed 321.595 billion and didn't touch any entitlements or constutionalitional spending.
Click to expand...
I would keep the 50 billion dedicated to foreign aid and use that money to invest in farms, textile plants, canning plants, etc, then grow food, manufacture clothing, tents, medical supplies, etc, and offer that in foreign aid, every single product distributed by an American directly to the citizens of those countries we support and no to the leaders to be used as leverage. Stamp every product with a made in the US label. If the countries didn't agree to our terms with regard to distribution, we respectfully decline the offer of aid and assistance.
 
Paschendale said:
As said above, military spending would drop like a stone. Especially on purchasing more and more elaborate weapons that we don't need. Next, the many subsidies for otherwise profitable companies. There is no need to help them if they are solvent on their own. Probably food production would be excepted. Also end the drug war, which not only saves us police power, but also the court costs, lawyer's fees, and the money we spend incarcerating people. I would remove the tax exempt status of religious organizations. They have to pay income and property tax like any other organizations, thus allowing any such organization to function on the same level, without needing government approval.

I cannot agree with any of the calls for cuts to education in this thread. I can agree that the regulated standards and focus on standardized tests was a mistake and should be ended. But the number one thing that is proven to improve a student's education is smaller classes, with fewer students per teachers. That costs money. That means building more school space and hiring more teachers. The most efficient method of providing that money is through a federal program. Tying that money to scores on a standard test and not allowing teachers any leeway in their curriculum is not the correct path, however.
Click to expand...
How does it make sense to tax citizens, send that money to a bureaucracy in DC, and then have those in that bureaucracy dole money back to the states as they see fit? Every state in the country has a Department of Education...heck...if I'm remembering correctly California has TWO. Ending the bureaucracy and excess at the fed level puts the onus on the citizens of each state to adequately support and fund their schools. It also frees up the states to raise taxes as necessary (under the more direct watch of their citizens).
 
VanceMack said:
How does it make sense to tax citizens, send that money to a bureaucracy in DC, and then have those in that bureaucracy dole money back to the states as they see fit? Every state in the country has a Department of Education...heck...if I'm remembering correctly California has TWO. Ending the bureaucracy and excess at the fed level puts the onus on the citizens of each state to adequately support and fund their schools. It also frees up the states to raise taxes as necessary (under the more direct watch of their citizens).
Click to expand...

Frankly, as long as the money gets to the schools, I don't really care how it got there. I don't have this ideal that demands that federal government is evil and state government is good, so I only care about which one can do a better job. As you say, it puts the onus on the state. The history of our country is rife with states dropping the ball when the onus is on them. If they can do a better job, then they should be doing it. If they cannot, which I suspect is the truth, then the federal government should do it. But most important is the imperative that it must be done.
 
Paschendale said:
Frankly, as long as the money gets to the schools, I don't really care how it got there. I don't have this ideal that demands that federal government is evil and state government is good, so I only care about which one can do a better job. As you say, it puts the onus on the state. The history of our country is rife with states dropping the ball when the onus is on them. If they can do a better job, then they should be doing it. If they cannot, which I suspect is the truth, then the federal government should do it. But most important is the imperative that it must be done.
Click to expand...
The federal government isn't 'evil' they are just bloated, corrupt, bankrupt, and financially nonviable. It is PRECISELY BECAUSE we as citizens have surrendered to (and lets face it...ENCOURAGED) the fed that we are in the fiscal mess we are in. Its EASY to turn over all of our burdens to the fed who in turn then runs rampant annual deficits and pushes all of the responsibility for our CURRENT spending on FUTURE generations. When your state has a 50 billion dollar annual deficit you kinda HAVE to pay attention to that, but when it is the fed and it involves trillions annually...well...that's always "someone elses problems".

The onus SHOULD be on the states. I don't think funding for education should be cut...in fact I think it should be expanded. Its something I would (and have) absolutely voted for. At the state and local level. That's where the burden belongs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom