What Government Programs Would YOU Cut?

[YoungConserv]

:doh

This perspective is "slop" and nonsense.

Teaching is one of the most important occupations in the world. But I'm guessing you haven't put any thought into what occupations are the most important. The only reasons teachers (and firemen and policemen) are paid so little is because of government. Government regulates how much a teacher can make. The biggest problem with our childrens education isn't the "slop" system, it's the parents. Parents today put minimal effort into raising their children these days. Teachers individually don't have much time with the kids at all. It's the parents responsibility to follow through with the schools teachings. :doh

Everyone credible has agreed the best thing we can do to stop mass shootings and violent behavior is better education.......If you are going to try and debate this you will be pretty much alone..:roll:

Then lets bring in competition and do a charter system?

 

[Anti-Party]

Come on liberals, chime in. I wanna know what you have to say. Tell me, why is Obama allowed to go around the country, demagoguing the issue of spending cuts the way he does? He trots out there like chicken little, and tells the country if the sequester goes through, that children are going to die, that we will lose our ability to respond to emergencies, that teachers will get fired, cops will no longer show up at your house when it's broken into, airplanes will virtually fall from the sky, etc etc....and on top of all that, it will be republicans' fault.

I think he understands his constituency all too well. He knows his followers will believe the stupid things he says.

Now, here's a more rational response to Obama's "the sky is falling" bull crap. "Why not cut OTHER things before you furlough service members?". Why not stop buying people cell phones so we can keep some cops? Why not curb, cut, or eliminate foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood so we can keep some flippin teachers? Why not freeze congressional pay, instead of increasing it, so we can feed some hungry kids? Why not target waste FIRST, and worry about harmful cuts LAST?????

No, instead, he fear mongers. Instead of defunding Obamaphones, he would rather furlough military personel just so he could say "told ya so" and blame Republicans.

Man isn't anything close to being a leader. He's a demagogue.

Boehner handed Obama FULL CONTROL over spending cuts in two bills passed by the House of Representatives. Obama said he would veto them. Imagine that. REps in the House passed TWO BILLS that would avoid the sequester, and Obama threatened veto both times. What does that say liberals? Explain it to us please......

It's all for show. Obama thinks he can hang the sequester around the necks of Republicans, and he will likely succeed in doing so. Wanna know why? Because half this country is freaking retarded, and would believe Obama if he said the sky turned pink and it rained elephants in Washington DC.

You bring up a good point. And part of the reason for this thread.

I keep wondering why the Right Wing keeps pushing the cut decisions on the Left Wing. Isn't it the Right Wing that wants to do the cutting? I haven't been following TOO closely, but I can only remember seeing two horribly thought out expense cut proposals from the Right Wing.

Yet I've made this thread on two different forums and I get very consistent idea's of what should be cut by TONS of people.

Why aren't the Right Wingers handing the President proposal after proposal until they can find one they agree on? Is it because when the cuts take place and there is backlash they want the President to be the person who made that decision?

There is so much obvious nonsense going on in Congress on both sides that I constantly wonder if they are actually secretly working together in some elaborate scheme to regain government control back from Corporate America and the F.R.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You bring up a good point. And part of the reason for this thread.

I keep wondering why the Right Wing keeps pushing the cut decisions on the Left Wing. Isn't it the Right Wing that wants to do the cutting? I haven't been following TOO closely, but I can only remember seeing two horribly thought out expense cut proposals from the Right Wing.

Yet I've made this thread on two different forums and I get very consistent idea's of what should be cut by TONS of people.

Why aren't the Right Wingers handing the President proposal after proposal until they can find one they agree on? Is it because when the cuts take place and there is backlash they want the President to be the person who made that decision?

There is so much obvious nonsense going on in Congress on both sides that I constantly wonder if they are actually secretly working together in some elaborate scheme to regain government control back from Corporate America and the F.R.

They want the cuts, but not the blame.

 

[Anti-Party]

Then lets bring in competition and do a charter system?

Charter school teachers generally don't get paid all that much more than a regular teacher today. But if we ended public schools and then went full private, the price would escalate like everything else. Teachers and schools would raise their cost in small increments eventually becoming one of our highest cost. If police were privatized, the same would happen. The difference is we have a TON of good hearted people who work as teachers for a low salary because they love the profession. We have terrible cops because most of them only do it for the power trip.

 

[Anti-Party]

They want the cuts, but not the blame.

I'm one of the few people who lean towards the Right Wing that is absolutely sick of the way the Right Wing is acting.

A lot of the reason is Fox News....Brainwashing entertainers creating a new lie everyday, because simply saying, "That's going to cost too much and give the government too much power" wouldn't be entertaining..

 

[Ikari]

Military spending can be drastically overhauled without affecting the effectiveness of the military, we can also stop supporting military bases on foreign lands to clear up some of it.

Foreign aid can be cut in total

Department if Education has no measurable, positive impact and can be done away with

All forms of subsidies, including farm and oil subsidizes, revoked

End things like the War on Drugs

Quit jailing the highest percentage of our population than anyone else

Department of Homeland Security gone

National Security Agency severely reduced

Office of Information Awareness....with a name like that, gone.

TSA not only gone, but they got to run a gauntlet to get out too. Bastards.

Medicare, welfare, unemployment drastically overhauled.

 

[YoungConserv]

Charter school teachers generally don't get paid all that much more than a regular teacher today. But if we ended public schools and then went full private, the price would escalate like everything else. Teachers and schools would raise their cost in small increments eventually becoming one of our highest cost. If police were privatized, the same would happen. The difference is we have a TON of good hearted people who work as teachers for a low salary because they love the profession. We have terrible cops because most of them only do it for the power trip.

The average property tax in Texas is 2.6% of property value as assessed by the state every year. With the average home value in Texas being 170000 you are paying 4250 a year regardless if you have a kid or not. So if you stay in that neighborhood 30 years and your house value doesn't change you pay 127500 for that school. Are you telling me we can't do education cheaper than that?

 

[The Man]

The average property tax in Texas is 2.6% of property value as assessed by the state every year. With the average home value in Texas being 170000 you are paying 4250 a year regardless if you have a kid or not. So if you stay in that neighborhood 30 years and your house value doesn't change you pay 127500 for that school. Are you telling me we can't do education cheaper than that?

I think on-line schooling ("cyber-schools") are the way of the future. If/when I have children, I will give that a serious look.

 

[CFH]

Under the leadership of the Obama administration welfare has been directly expanded through these policies:

-Provision of funds to states for the purpose of the sole purpose of welfare expansion
For example, the 2009 Stimulus provided $5 billion under the "Welfare Emergency Fund" for handouts, with no focus on promoting work

-Encouraged welfare spending, specifically through the 2009 Stimulus, which weakened the program's requirements for work

-Expanded unemployment checks to a record 99 weeks (nearly 2 years) per person also through the 2009 Stimulus

-Rewarded states for expanding unemployment benefits, including people who quit their jobs

-Increased the size of unemployment checks under the 2009 Stimulus which adds $100 per month, or $1,200 a year

-Suspended work requirements for food stamps for able-bodied men (also every other budget proposed by Pres. Obama has called for a continuation of these suspensions)

-Expanded food stamp program adding $80 per family, or nearly $1,000 per year

-Allowing ANYONE regardless of savings or assets to receive food stamps and Medicaid
The passage of Obamacare has effectively removed asset limits for Medicaid recipients.
Administrative action has also removed asset limits for food stamps <http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/2009/093009.pdf>



The reasoning behind these policies could not be any more noble. It is firmly believed by the masses that each of these actions will effectively aid the poor and limit the supposedly "enormous" gap between the rich and the poor. However, this notion could not be any more of a fallacy, and sadly it is infeasible that the majority of politicians who advocate these policies are unaware of the negative effects caused by such policy.

The underlying problem behind any attempt to redistribute the wealth on a large scale is that incentives to work by the recipients are lost. If an easier form of income is attainable, that method of income will certainly be chosen. Further more if a productive member of society sees an opportunity to gain a reasonable income without work, he will also most likely chose that method. Before the late 1960's when the "war on poverty" begun, the US had been experiencing a steady decline in rates of poverty:



Attempts to redistribute wealth stagnated the previously decreasing rate of poverty.

Not only is a lack of incentive created through these attempts, but the free market is damaged by tax increases needed for such levels of redistribution. Businesses become less fruitful, therefore cannot afford to employ as many people and must lower their wages (and if minimum wage laws are in place to inhibit the lowering of wages, then even more lay-offs occur). Focus on education is also lost and is instead placed on physical redistribution. This explains why the large percent of children who grew up in poverty, remain in poverty. So called "welfare" for the poor casts members of the lower classes and their posterity into a cycle of destitution and demoralization.

There is, however, a solution which would greatly benefit the poor. Enable the free market to properly operate, while ensuring that proper labor right laws are in place to inhibit deplorable working conditions seen in the Gilded Age. Never before has the world seen a freer period with as much mobility between classes as America in the 19th century. Unfortunately the progressive movement of the early 20th century put an end to this prosperity and mobility by implementing policy that restricted free enterprise. However, in the 1920's the market was again revived by Harding and Cooldige, creating one of the greatest short periods of prosperity the world had ever seen. Unfortunately, the 1929 crash (further exacerbated by the fed creating a depression) enabled progressives such as Hoover and FDR to further diminish American values by implementing policies like the ones in the New Deal which remove personal responsibility and working incentives, forever casting America into a downward spiral towards an economy dependent upon government intervention.

 

[Anti-Party]

Military spending can be drastically overhauled without affecting the effectiveness of the military, we can also stop supporting military bases on foreign lands to clear up some of it.

Foreign aid can be cut in total

Department if Education has no measurable, positive impact and can be done away with

All forms of subsidies, including farm and oil subsidizes, revoked

End things like the War on Drugs

Quit jailing the highest percentage of our population than anyone else

Department of Homeland Security gone

National Security Agency severely reduced

Office of Information Awareness....with a name like that, gone.

TSA not only gone, but they got to run a gauntlet to get out too. Bastards.

Medicare, welfare, unemployment drastically overhauled.

Great post. Our military is buying new tanks only to sell our old tanks to countries who pose a threat to our country. This is great for the Military Weapons Manufacturers that have bought both major parties and the NRA, but not for the rest of America.

 

[Anti-Party]

The average property tax in Texas is 2.6% of property value as assessed by the state every year. With the average home value in Texas being 170000 you are paying 4250 a year regardless if you have a kid or not. So if you stay in that neighborhood 30 years and your house value doesn't change you pay 127500 for that school. Are you telling me we can't do education cheaper than that?

I never said we couldn't do education cheaper....Please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply said I believe public schooling is a better option than private...

 

[Anti-Party]

Under the leadership of the Obama administration welfare has been directly expanded through these policies:

-Provision of funds to states for the purpose of the sole purpose of welfare expansion
For example, the 2009 Stimulus provided $5 billion under the "Welfare Emergency Fund" for handouts, with no focus on promoting work

-Encouraged welfare spending, specifically through the 2009 Stimulus, which weakened the program's requirements for work

-Expanded unemployment checks to a record 99 weeks (nearly 2 years) per person also through the 2009 Stimulus

-Rewarded states for expanding unemployment benefits, including people who quit their jobs

-Increased the size of unemployment checks under the 2009 Stimulus which adds $100 per month, or $1,200 a year

-Suspended work requirements for food stamps for able-bodied men (also every other budget proposed by Pres. Obama has called for a continuation of these suspensions)

-Expanded food stamp program adding $80 per family, or nearly $1,000 per year

-Allowing ANYONE regardless of savings or assets to receive food stamps and Medicaid
The passage of Obamacare has effectively removed asset limits for Medicaid recipients.
Administrative action has also removed asset limits for food stamps <http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/2009/093009.pdf>



The reasoning behind these policies could not be any more noble. It is firmly believed by the masses that each of these actions will effectively aid the poor and limit the supposedly "enormous" gap between the rich and the poor. However, this notion could not be any more of a fallacy, and sadly it is infeasible that the majority of politicians who advocate these policies are unaware of the negative effects caused by such policy.

The underlying problem behind any attempt to redistribute the wealth on a large scale is that incentives to work by the recipients are lost. If an easier form of income is attainable, that method of income will certainly be chosen. Further more if a productive member of society sees an opportunity to gain a reasonable income without work, he will also most likely chose that method. Before the late 1960's when the "war on poverty" begun, the US had been experiencing a steady decline in rates of poverty:

View attachment 67143700

Attempts to redistribute wealth stagnated the previously decreasing rate of poverty.

Not only is a lack of incentive created through these attempts, but the free market is damaged by tax increases needed for such levels of redistribution. Businesses become less fruitful, therefore cannot afford to employ as many people and must lower their wages (and if minimum wage laws are in place to inhibit the lowering of wages, then even more lay-offs occur). Focus on education is also lost and is instead placed on physical redistribution. This explains why the large percent of children who grew up in poverty, remain in poverty. So called "welfare" for the poor casts members of the lower classes and their posterity into a cycle of destitution and demoralization.

There is, however, a solution which would greatly benefit the poor. Enable the free market to properly operate, while ensuring that proper labor right laws are in place to inhibit deplorable working conditions seen in the Gilded Age. Never before has the world seen a freer period with as much mobility between classes as America in the 19th century. Unfortunately the progressive movement of the early 20th century put an end to this prosperity and mobility by implementing policy that restricted free enterprise. However, in the 1920's the market was again revived by Harding and Cooldige, creating one of the greatest short periods of prosperity the world had ever seen. Unfortunately, the 1929 crash (further exacerbated by the fed creating a depression) enabled progressives such as Hoover and FDR to further diminish American values by implementing policies like the ones in the New Deal which remove personal responsibility and working incentives, forever casting America into a downward spiral towards an economy dependent upon government intervention.

Your post, though extremeist and exaggerated, is pretty good. But there is one thing you have to understand. Why are these people out of work? Most because of outsourcing. Corporate America wants slavery because of greed. It's why Corporate profits are at an all time low and American wages are at an all time low. Most jobs outsourced are low skill jobs and most people on welfare are low skill workers.

So do we cut these people off because of the decisions of greedy Corporate America? Or do we give Corporate America a push back to get them hiring American again?

We all know one or more people who are committing government fraud. The ones that could be working and aren't because they are just leeching. It's a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

But to actually think that the president wants welfare is a Fox News grade joke :roll:

 

[Anti-Party]

Didn't Rand Paul say one time there was a costly program where they were studying the effects of Heroin on mice?

 

[CFH]

...there is one thing you have to understand. Why are these people out of work? Most because of outsourcing. Corporate America wants slavery because of greed.

Let me ask you this: Do you suppose that, contrary to corporate leaders, bureaucratic leaders do not operate on greed? I challenge you to name any system of government, or any entity that possesses power, which does not operate on greed.

When it comes down to it, there are only two reasons why someone does not have a job: he/she does not want to or he/she can't.

People under the category of "cannot work", in my opinion deserve government assistance. This means that there should be a safety net for people who are in distress (e.g. recently lost a house, recently lost a job, disabled, etc.). Perhaps it is difficult to find a job. In many scenarios a person cannot find a job fitting his criteria, so goes on government aid instead of taking a lower paying job. This places that person in the category "does not want to work". This is why it is necessary to reform our societal hammock into a safety
net. As a result, people living in poverty will be subconsciously benefited by increased incentive which will eventually lead them out of poverty, and by the ability to do so by more job opportunities due to more fruitful businesses.

 

[YoungConserv]

I never said we couldn't do education cheaper....Please don't put words in my mouth.

I simply said I believe public schooling is a better option than private...

You said " But if we ended public schools and then went full private, the price would escalate like everything else"

 

[YoungConserv]

Your post, though extremeist and exaggerated, is pretty good. But there is one thing you have to understand. Why are these people out of work? Most because of outsourcing. Corporate America wants slavery because of greed. It's why Corporate profits are at an all time low and American wages are at an all time low. Most jobs outsourced are low skill jobs and most people on welfare are low skill workers.

So do we cut these people off because of the decisions of greedy Corporate America? Or do we give Corporate America a push back to get them hiring American again?

We all know one or more people who are committing government fraud. The ones that could be working and aren't because they are just leeching. It's a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

But to actually think that the president wants welfare is a Fox News grade joke :roll:

What is this greed you speak of?

 

[Fisher]

Wish states had more charter schools. It is the only way you can escape the nationalized nannystate curriculum and requirements and let teachers teach.

 

[Chelsea]

When it comes down to it, there are only two reasons why someone does not have a job: he/she does not want to or he/she can't.

".

Why do people always passby the working poor here? Alot of people on foodstamps/medicaid work fulltime and arent offered insurance, paid enough to buy foo amd pay rent, or they cant pay for.childcare and rent (childcare often being more expensive than housing!).

 

[calamity]

I'd cut the trillion dollar defense budget in half, and then look to change the entitlement system: redesign Medicare and Social Security.

 

[YoungConserv]

I'd cut the trillion dollar defense budget in half, and then look to change the entitlement system: redesign Medicare and Social Security.

Here's the thing though while there is fat in defense it's constitutional entitlements are not so let's cut what government shouldn't be doing before cutting what they should do.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'd cut the trillion dollar defense budget in half,

If we cut it back to what it was under Bush we'd save a few hundred billion. I'm not sure why it has climbed so much since we are not fighting in Iraq anymore.

 

[calamity]

Here's the thing though while there is fat in defense it's constitutional entitlements are not so let's cut what government shouldn't be doing before cutting what they should do.

The logic is flawed, not to mention you're wrong.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment. The Court defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.
Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative's really do not understand the way the US is governed. Do they?

 

[calamity]

If we cut it back to what it was under Bush we'd save a few hundred billion. I'm not sure why it has climbed so much since we are not fighting in Iraq anymore.

It's a jobs program.

 

[YoungConserv]

The logic is flawed, not to mention you're wrong.


Conservative's really do not understand the way the US is governed. Do they?

Do you? Show me in article three where scotus gets the power to review and interpret the constitution? Social security Medicare and Medicaid are all 10th amendment issues.

 

[calamity]

Do you? Show me in article three where scotus gets the power to review and interpret the constitution? Social security Medicare and Medicaid are all 10th amendment issues.

:lol: