Cutting down the US budget

If anything government spending is among the largest concerns of americans when it comes to issues facing america today. Obama recently released a $3.6 trillion budget with savings of up to $250 billion. Many argue on the left that spending is needed to keep the nation afloat but for how long? This is a big figure, even if its for the next couple of years. On the rightwing the argument is that tax cuts along with cutting programs is the only solution, but how effective will tax cuts? The Bush tax cuts certainly didnt bring a boom to the nation in my opinion neither did it prevent the looming financial crises. Mind you Bush spent nearly $1 trillion worth of tax cuts.

I do agree that we need to cut pork out of the government it goes both ways when its come ideology.

The US military expenditure is nearly twice that of what it was during the cold war. We spend nearly half the worlds military expenditure at over $500 billion a year. We also increased out military expenditure by nearly $1 trillion dollars over the last 10 years:
www-tc.pbs.org...

The two wars are costing us dearly as well and while there is withdrawal in place for Iraq by 2011 for the time being it is still costing the country. Both wars already cost the country over $1 trillion:

www.cnn.com...

As much as I have supported the hunt for terror cells in afghanistan following 9/11 we need to consider a different approach. We still need to be in afghanistan, but the war needs to turn into a man hunt for the attackers of 9/11, not an entire war anymore. I have reluctantly concluded its becoming costly, but still see the necessity of our involvement there.

What about the US and its bases abroad? The pentagon is already spending more than $100 million to build new bases in eastern Europe:
www.stripes.com...

The cost to the US tax payer to hold bases abroad is $102 billion per year: www.tomdispatch.com...

In Pakistan alone its costing over $700 million to build a base there as referenced in that article.

controlcongress.com...

The cost of Israel military and aid assistance to the US a year is roughly $3 billion a year:
www.ifamericansknew.org...

So why do we need to spend so much on the military? Why do we need to be a police of the world? Over the last 10 years when both the Republicans and Democrats held majority, the costs of the military industrial complex have risen and continued to rise.

I have been trying to look up data on welfare, and the only clear data I came up with was from this website:

Social Security — $586.1 billion or $48.83 billion per month

Medicare — $394.5 billion or $32.88 billion per month

Welfare/Unemployment — $294 billion or $24.5 billion per month

Medicaid — $276.4 billion or $23.03 billion per month

So evidently there may need to be reform in that side of our spending where I agree with conservatives, but I dont think we can be so fast to cut out the entire programme. There are evidently those who are disabled, our elders, veterans who have served us who are deserving of assistance. As to how much money should be cut out is debatable.

In addition to that, illegal immigration costs the US over 300 billion a year.
www.rense.com...

I agree it should be delt with, but I believe the most effective was is making the current illegal immigrants go through the proper process where they will eventually pay taxes back into this nation. Some of them do anyway when working illegally, but its costing america nevertheless. I believe that dealing with this problem goes beyond merely strengthening the borders. There needs to be a more strategic approach.

Anyway I'd like opinions from fellow ATSers over my analysis over some of the costs to this country and whether there is anymore we are missing.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Southern Guardian]

How about eliminating all unconstitutional spending programs?

Any and all forms of "social assistance" programs, entitlement programs, the Dept of Education, etc etc.

Get rid of every unconstitutional expenditure.

SG... seldom do we agree, but on this, I am with you. Brainwrek... I also agree with you! You have BOTH solved our debt crisis in a very bipartisan manner. Now, if we could just get the idiots in Washington to do the same....

SG... One thing worthy of pointing out. Russia went to a flat tax system based soley on consumption. EVERYONE pays a flat tax on anything they purchase - period! As a result, consumption, and thus taxes, went up. How? Simple... average people were taking home their entire pay which was considerably more than they had before! I understand the theory behind the Bush tax cuts, however, execution was clumsy and ineffective. That being said, RAISING taxes right now would prove to be catastrophic!!!

reply to post by Southern Guardian

As much as I have supported the hunt for terror cells in afghanistan following 9/11 we need to consider a different approach. We still need to be in afghanistan, but the war needs to turn into a man hunt for the attackers of 9/11, not an entire war anymore. I have reluctantly concluded its becoming costly, but still see the necessity of our involvement there.

I agree. We should have let the hounds out a couple years ago.

So evidently there may need to be reform in that side of our spending where I agree with conservatives, but I dont think we can be so fast to cut out the entire programme. There are evidently those who are disabled, our elders, veterans who have served us who are deserving of assistance. As to how much money should be cut out is debatable.

This is the most difficult decision. There are people who really need assistance. About the only savings here is preventing fraud and streamlining the system. But even with this saving, these entitlements will continue to grow as veterans come back from war and the baby generation retires.

I don't agree about the illegal immigrant amount. I wonder if they are including legal immigrants as well. Here is an article from factcheck concerning more or less the same amount.

www.factcheck.org...


Nonetheless, the issue needs to be addressed.

Here are some extra resources I found about waste

50 examples

taxpayer watchdog

Excellent thread. I think one way we can save is to cut the programs that are redundant. Maybe even give up the war on drug and let the states takeover.

You will never cut enough spending to be of any significance. It does not matter who is in office. It is not happening.

We got greedy and stupid wilson #ed us, FDR piled ontop of that with social programs that could never be removed.

I know we have to cut stuff but here is how evil fdr was, he KNOWS once social security and the other social programs are running they will never be stopped. How could you end the programs it is down right suicide literally. People would die overnight just from lack of hospitalization.

The social bills changed the dynamic of our society from one of independence, to dependence.
THe only way it is going to be solved is the system has to collapse on its own weight and incredible pain and human suffering will ensue.

Then over time we will learn how to love each other again as human beings, we will be independent once again once from government ,government will be our tool to work as intended. Maybe we will be able to keep our Lives and hopefully our Constitution.

People got along fine before the advent of these entitlement programs. We didn't have senior citizens and parapalegics laying dead in the streets. Families and communities took care of their own. Why should they bother to do that now? Government will take care of everyone and the families can go on selfishly unburdened by what was once considered a loved one and communities can look the other way. That's good for society. Sure.

It's like people imagine the world didn't exist 60 years ago or that we were all cavemen lucky to live past 30.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Something else to consider, back prior to WWII the average car cost a half years average salary. Now te average car costs a full years average salary. The average home cost three years average salary. Now the avereage home costs 5 to 8 years salary.

Aren't technology and practice supposed to make things cheaper and better? So much more work and time went into building a house or manufacturing a car back then.

So what happened?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I can agree with the conservative viewpoint on size of government and spending to a degree. Where those cuts come from I do differ.

I don't think we need to cut education spending at all, in fact I think that education in this country needs an increase. We cannot afford to have uneducated people in the workforce anymore. With education comes opportunity. So I do not agree with any education cuts at all.

The military needs a cut though. Fact of the matter is, we don't need military spending as outrageous as it is. Constitutionally our military is supposed to defend our nation, not defend other nations. Not occupy other nations, not have bases in other nations.

IMO the Department of Homeland Security needs to be gone, one of the worst ideas in American history. And once it's gone I would not reallocate the budget either. The job of the DHS is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. We have the FBI, CIA, and NSA to handle all security concerns as far as our country goes. With technology properly used can keep up with our demand for security in this country.

And if you wanted to eliminate the debt, outlaw the FED. Audit them and charge them under RICO. After that, you tell people that own our debt that it's the FED that they have the issue with not the United States Government. After all, the FED isn't a federal institution, it's a private organization. Bam, no more national debt. The people that are owed can sue the FED for what they have stolen.

Next after we get a government the size it needs by firing at least 1/4 of federal employees, you pass a constitutional amendment that requires the federal government to keep a balanced budget. And any increase in that budget must have a constitutional amendment passed in order to do it.

Sorry for those that want to kill grandma who lives off of Medicare and her social security check, but we do have an obligation to our elderly. You can't just cut people off of programs they have paid into their entire lives, that's not only evil, but wrong to do. I could support a sunset clause for these programs. A cutoff for people just being born after a certain date, so that they aren't ripped off for the money they paid into the system.

But if you did that, what do you do about the elderly poor? Does the states have to provide for them? And if you did that, wouldn't states have to increase taxes in order to provide for their elderly citizens? I am not sure that Florida or Arizona would like that solution too much.

The bottom line is that any decrease in federal spending would probably warrant an increase in state spending. That would mean more taxes on the state level.

While it's not true for say military cuts and eliminating DHS, it would be true for things like Medicare and other benefits.

But a decrease in size of the federal government is a good idea that I can get behind. If done in an intelligent way, it would go far to balancing the budget and get us out of the hole that we dug ourselves into.

Part and parcel to this is as a nation we need to do something to increase the value of our currency, and also make ourselves as a nation more appealing to business. This would be in the form both of decreasing taxes on business, and employees need to also take a pay cut. Sorry, but in order for businesses to compete in a global market you can't expect a job with full benefits, a pension, and all the other perks some jobs have.

It's funny to me that we as Americans insist on lower taxes, but we aren't willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to help our businesses be more profitable. We expect CEO's of major corporations to take an annual salary of $1, how many of you could live off of that salary? Be serious.

The road we have been on in this country needs to change, our dollar has to be worth more. Our lifestyles have to change, our government needs to be smaller, more efficient and work, it has to listen to the people. Part of that is personal responsibility too. I don't think it's the government's job to make sure that terrorists aren't on planes either. You know what, that is your job, you can't have both security and liberty, it just doesn't work. Fact is, the last two people were caught by passengers anyway. If a terrorist blows up a plane, well thats the price you pay for being in a country that is free.

Budget cuts:-

A.) Defence:- Military personnel, while courageous, unfortunately are unproductive, a liability than an asset. They consume more than produce for a society, but they do serve a critical need to protect the country. A balance therefore is required.

a. Instead of beefing up the army, make use of a reserve army instead, of workers who are ready to be called up for duty when needs arises. It will cut down the monthly national bills for society. Training and updating can be done once a year for about 30 days.

b. Oversea bases should be withdrawn and are unnecessary expenditures. Projection of a military’s might do not lay with bases overseas. It lays with its convincing power to change hearts and minds of potential foes into allies, to serve a common aim and destiny for mankind.

Grabbing others by their balls with might may make them sing your tune today, but one cannot hold on to the balls forever. One day when that hand releases to do other stuff, that's when a different song will be sung instead.

c. Build up a well trained diplomatic corp whom can understand at grassroot level of overseas foreign nations instead of doing the wine and dine circuits, to have a better understanding of the ally or foe, so as to provide timely and necessary adjustments to foreign policy to serve the society.

d. Despite having so many intelligence services, it failed time and time again when it counts. 911 and the Iraq war happened. A reduction to 2 intel services would be sufficient and more lean and trimly effective organization.

e. With the excess stand-down personnel, they can be put into home security services such as the police, fire-fighting and civil defense forces, until inner city crime level drops sufficiently to retire them out of a society’s budget, and place them in productive units for manufacturing or services.

B.) FEDs and Tax

a. Feds are the biggest creditors of American debts. The days of continual borrowing from such private entities to fund society’s expenditure must end. But first, in order to end the days of feds will be to pay back every dime loaned by the US govt for its social spending expenditure, if possible.

b. Feds had grown fat from the tax revenues collected and interest payments received when the T bonds matured over the years. They will not be easy to write off, and will fight tooth and nail, even dirty to retain such rights.

Rather than to waste time and expenditure fighting the feds, work within its system, pay them the monies and wean off debts to them gradually, by taking austerity fiscal measures, spending only on the necessary. Wars and Aids may be a good way to influence other nations, but a broken nation projects nothing but poverty and hollowness.

c. The rich must be convinced to pay high taxes, for during the Bush era, when they were let off paying little or no taxes, they only used the excess amounts to play the stock markets instead of creating jobs through manufacturing or services. Ask the multi million dollar per sitcom episode actor what he did with his earnings and you will know what I mean.

Those who chosed to set up jobs overseas or working for foreign companies in foreign lands too must be taxed, for they took the expertise and nurturing from a society and benefited another.

d. Remove as much as possible, multiple taxations to the masses, for it is not fair to them to empty their pockets. They are the consumers and NOT the hoarding rich whom keep not only the economy going, but other foreign economies churning as well.

C. ) Social spending

This is a must if societies are to thrive. Rather than to spend direct injection, new ways must be sought to pool the limited tax resources. A concept would be similar to health insurance scheme, whereby with just a small non-refundable amount per year, pool together with everyone, it will help give medical care to those need it when they need it. Not everyone will go ill at the same time.

Then let the insurance firms, with all that money, to run health and fitness awareness programmes. It will be their interest to maintain each american's health, or their bottomline will suffer in payouts. It will be their responsibility too, to use their huge funds to challenge the medical industrial complex to keep health care costs low and honest.

Education is also a critical need, not just for kids, but for adults of all ages as well. As we progress in technology rapidly, skillsets will have to be taught constantly or one will lose out in the market place, thus, funding should not be limited to just kids, but to adults as well, for relevant work and skill upgrading courses, and not for other frivolous courses which they can do on their own in their own free time.

I will stop here now, for I believe there are many more others who will have better ideas than me to contribute.

Posting here may be believed to be a wasted effort, but then if the reader here would consider our points if found worthy, he/she may discussed with their family, relatives, friends and elected representatives. This is how change will come. It will not be a wasted effort to contribute here.

Cheers :-)




[edit on 20-2-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

reply to post by whatukno


I find that ideologically I almost never agree with you. However this time i'm with you about 95%.... Just one small addendum...

I don't think we need to cut education spending at all, in fact I think that education in this country needs an increase.

This I think is almost right...While we do desperately need an increase in education; we most certainly do not need an increase in education funding from the federal level.
My logic is this: In the army almost everybody in the nation knows how we get up early and exercise. PT, or physical training it's called. In the 80's the dept. of the army instituted a "pt test" consisting of push ups, sit ups, and a two mile run (all timed). It was originally designed to effectively gauge ones fitness. However, overall physical fitness has dropped since then due to a "train for the test" mentality. These three events do not a fit, strong person make. I've known all too many who can "max" the pt test, and yet cannot lift over 50 lbs easily, simply because they are, well, scrawny.

Since the inception of the dept. of education, the result has been the same. Because of a teach/learn the test material mentality....tests mandated by the federal government to receive funding....students do not receive a good, quality education. And with this influx of funding to public schools also came an influx of school administrators who dont give two s##ts about the quality of education, but only their own bottom line. Thus our children have become mental midgets (no disrespect to actual midgets intended )
while at the same time they do "oh so well on the standardized tests.......the problem must be that we dont have enough money...."

We have the highest education budget in the world on top of that many counties have property tax that go for the schools annually.

You can spend go broke, barrow more money from china to piss down the education system.

Flat out these kids are dumb till about the age of 30 in most cases.
If you finish hs, takes you about 10 years or so to figure things out because they don't get an education that can be applied in the real world same for college kids.
If you go through college you spend about 10 years afterward weeding out the garbage from the things you should know that apply in real life.