It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Private developers grabbed up the spoils of all this public blockbusting, especially Fred Trump, father of Donald, who filled in what had been the Gut with towers of his own. Trump also bought the still-profitable Steeplechase, the last of the great parks, for cheap (mostly because Marie Tilyou, granddaughter of the park’s founder, preferred to see it demolished, rather than entertain the black residents from many of Coney’s new projects). When Trump caught wind of a rumor that the grand old lady of Coney might be landmarked under the city’s new preservation laws, he moved fast. Hastily scheduling another demolition, he paused only long enough to hold a party inside the park the night before the wreckers were due. To make sure he drew some publicity, Trump invited six leggy showgirls and handed all his guests bricks—bricks they were invited to hurl through the legendary, painted glass trellis that housed most of Steeplechase.
originally posted by: amazing
We could do it though. If we actually made the parts of government we don't need a lot smaller. Do we really need 700+ Military installations and bases out there in the world? Do we really need the NSA? We could also pay congress a bit less. We could also tweak or tax laws for corporations and stop corporate welfare. We pay hundreds of millions of dollars to oil companies every year. We could do it.
originally posted by: queenofswords
No...we don't have a revenue problem.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: queenofswords
No...we don't have a revenue problem.
If we didn't have a revenue problem we wouldn't have a deficit.
Do you really think we have a spending problem?
All in USD
The US spends $11893 per citizen.
The UK spends $17160 per citizen.
Canada spends $21069 per citizen.
France spends $23697 per citizen.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: amazing
We could do it though. If we actually made the parts of government we don't need a lot smaller. Do we really need 700+ Military installations and bases out there in the world? Do we really need the NSA? We could also pay congress a bit less. We could also tweak or tax laws for corporations and stop corporate welfare. We pay hundreds of millions of dollars to oil companies every year. We could do it.
The salaries of every member of congress including their staff still comes in at the millions of dollars while budgets are in the trillions. To put this in perspective if something costs $1000, the amount that congress takes is about 5 cents. Just what sort of meaningful savings are you going to make there?
On the subject of defense budgets, as long as the US is essentially acting as the forces for the UN and Nato there's a practical limit to how far we can reduce our military. If we want to maintain the ability to invade a country on our own we can only cut our defense budget by about 25%, if we want to be able to invade a country as part of a coalition we can drop it by about 33%, any further and we will have no force projection capabilities.
Certain parts of the budget are federally mandated and we can't cut them by law. Interest on the debt, social security, medicare, and defense to name a few. 83% of the budget is mandatory spending, the remaining 17% is things like funding schools, building roads, NASA, the FDA, and others. If we were to completely cut the 17% of the budget that is discretionary and cut the defense department in half (remember what I said above about 33%?) we can only reduce the federal budget by 25%.
There is simply no fat left to cut, there used to be but after 20 years worth of budget debates by deficit hawks we've pretty much cleaned up spending money in areas that we don't need to be spending it. The only thing left is to reduce waste in individual programs but no one ever puts forth any serious ideas doing that.
Furthermore, even if we were to cut that 17% of the budget that's discretionary the states would have to pick up the tab in order to continue funding schools and having a road system, the taxes would just be coming from the state rather than the feds.
originally posted by: Moresby
originally posted by: carewemust
Obama wanted centralized Universal Healthcare too.
Actually, as president he refused to say what he wanted regarding healthcare. It annoyed everyone.
He did once make a statement in favor of single payer long before he was in the senate.
I've seen the other side and its really bad because it encourages very massive immigration from countries that don't have free healthcare. I really can't blame anyone for accepting something for "free". That would be your fault for offering it. Giving away OTHER people's money against their will actually results in bad things as a result of violating basic moral values.
originally posted by: skindawg003
This is what I just don't get, I am Canadian, we have free health care, it gets paid for through taxes, if taxes were applied correctly to the right tax brackets, it would be good for your people. Why are you letting political idologies make your decision for you. This happens in every country, where people get tunnel vision because they wont allow themselves to see another side because it goes against their political beliefs. Or maybe Regan saying America will turn into a communist state with free healthcare is still fresh in everyones mind.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: olaru12
And of course, since he's the CEO (or will be), he doesn't give a thought to anyone in Congress disagreeing with him. If they do, he'll just FIRE them! He can make it happen. He'll be GREAT with Congress!
originally posted by: amazing
I have to disagree. There is plenty of fat. When talking about congress for just one thing, we're talking not just salary, but benefits and retirement. Talking about congress, we're also talking about staffers and other bloated things. When you add in all of that you are almost at 1 billion minimum. That's just one small part. Then you have NSA. Not needed. We already have the FBI and CIA. The NSA is just used to spy on US citizens. The combined us intelligence budget is 17-20 Billion.
We aren't the UN police and nor do we need to be. I agree we need a strong military but that does not mean 700+ military bases. Especially when we have so many allies, like Israel, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, UK just to name 6 other countries. That's a lot of land mass, and military might...then you have Nato and all of that. The only reason we have all of those military bases is for colonialism. We don't need em for self defense.
We can cut our military spending in half while raising/increasing benefits to Vets and military personel and families. That would be very easy to do.
And your telling me we can't afford healthcare for everyone? We're only talking about 48-100 Billion. That sounds like a lot, but then consider that. We probably already subsidize hospitals to the tune of $20 billion for the federal government as it is.
Don't get me started on subsidies for oil companies. You realize we pay fossil fuel companies between $30-40 billion a year.. look that up. If an oil company can't stay in business let them fail.
originally posted by: queenofswords
You cannot compare the US to other smaller countries. Canada has 30 million people; the UK 65 million; France 67 million; America 380 million. We have unique problems that are exacerbated by lots of issues.
As I said earlier, we brought in 3 trillion dollars in revenue. We have a fraud, corruption, waste, and bloated bureacracy problem.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: amazing
I have to disagree. There is plenty of fat. When talking about congress for just one thing, we're talking not just salary, but benefits and retirement. Talking about congress, we're also talking about staffers and other bloated things. When you add in all of that you are almost at 1 billion minimum. That's just one small part. Then you have NSA. Not needed. We already have the FBI and CIA. The NSA is just used to spy on US citizens. The combined us intelligence budget is 17-20 Billion.
1 billion (which I still think is high) out of a 4 trillion budget is 1/4000, or to put this another way 1/4 of 1/10 of 1%. And I would argue the opposite, I've made this point several times here in the past but one of the best things we could do to improve the functioning of Congress is to pay them more. The more we pay them, the more attention people will pay to their elected rep's, additionally the more we pay them the less they need to devote time to special interests, which means better legislation for the people. You can think of their salaries as the public's lobbying money. Using your estimation of 1 billion annually that means the American people are spending $1 billion per year to lobby their government. Last year reported lobbying totaled 3.5 billion. Is it any wonder those in power are less attention to the people? We could increase the salaries of every elected official by a factor of 10 and it would come to just over $2/year in taxes, and it would buy much more attentive members of congress.
We aren't the UN police and nor do we need to be. I agree we need a strong military but that does not mean 700+ military bases. Especially when we have so many allies, like Israel, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, UK just to name 6 other countries. That's a lot of land mass, and military might...then you have Nato and all of that. The only reason we have all of those military bases is for colonialism. We don't need em for self defense.
The US acts as a balance of power for western interests. We effectively push our interests as well as those of allied nations who don't have much in the way of a military. Doing this gives us a lot of political sway. Reducing the size of our military also reduces our diplomatic leverage against other countries. For example if we reduce our military too far then we have to make a choice between countering Russian influence in Syria, Chinese influence in the South China Sea, North Korean influence on their peninsula, and Iranian influence in fighting ISIS. More force projection, which bases play a large part in means more options.
If we step back and cease to be a super power in the name of cutting spending, how much will that cost our nation over 50 years compared to the few years of savings we get in our budgets as we get worse trade deals, can't influence nations to be pro US, and so on?
We can cut our military spending in half while raising/increasing benefits to Vets and military personel and families. That would be very easy to do.
Cutting our military spending in half also means cutting our military size in half. Doing so removes a lot of jobs directly from the military and it also removes a lot from the private sector as we can't develop nearly as many toys. Economy of scale is a huge factor in billion dollar research projects like new fighters and new carriers and it is much more cost effective to produce 100 new fighters than to produce 50. In order to make weapons development make sense there are certain size requirements that must be maintained and new weapons development is a must if we're going to continue to use our military for diplomatic leverage.
And your telling me we can't afford healthcare for everyone? We're only talking about 48-100 Billion. That sounds like a lot, but then consider that. We probably already subsidize hospitals to the tune of $20 billion for the federal government as it is.
At current tax revenues, no. Then again, I support doubling our taxes with half of those additional taxes paying down the debt (1.5 trillion/year) and the other half funding social programs like eliminating homelessness, health care for all, subsidizing college, eliminating the deficit, making a real public transportation system, and long term projects like what Ben Franklin did for Philadelphia.
Don't get me started on subsidies for oil companies. You realize we pay fossil fuel companies between $30-40 billion a year.. look that up. If an oil company can't stay in business let them fail.
We do, but much like welfare programs like SNAP those payments are budget neutral. The money we give the oil companies instead gets spent in the economy on new drilling, new refineries (some day), employees, and so on which is then collected in payroll taxes and sales taxes as the extra spending ripples through the various stores around the nation. This is true of all subsidies of successful businesses.