Spending Cuts

Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,534
I think we should means test Social Security and Medicare. Once upon a time the idea for SS was that it was insurance against growing older before you were unable to provide for yourself. It really was. Most of you aren't old enough to remember that this was the image of the program in the minds of the majority of Americans.

Of course in order to maintain that that sort of program retirement ages should have been raised with the increasing lifespans and the money should have been placed somewhere the Congress couldn't raid it, perhaps an infrastructure bank that could have been administered by the governors. Instead too many people have counted on it as a primary retirement program.

We have to cut something somewhere. If government spending created prosperity we would all be rich. It doesn't. Means testing is going to be necessary and we need to begin to phase it in. In both programs.

People will feel betrayed by their government and rightly so. But raising the retirement ages and adjusting the COLA will fall hard on those who have worked hard labor jobs and need the money sooner and it is too hard on the poor and unfortunate.

On the military side we must permanently cut the spending levels and change our foreign policy to one of engagement rather than of intervention. Not isolation but our allies in NATO and around the world must bear more weight in terms of standing forces and foreign aid.

America must shred the illusion that we have limitless pockets and power.

Corruption and waste have become entrenched as the attitude toward them has become one of apathy and submission. We must become ruthless in rooting them out and work together as a nation to reestablish moral and ethical standards that have eroded in the haze of partisan warfare.

We must embrace the reality that we can't have our ponies free, and, that there are and will be consequences to the choices that we make. Simply cutting the rate of projected budget increases is not going to cut it in a world where America has to actually compete tooth and nail with everyone else.

We have to get lean and mean. Spending is the problem. If you look at the adjusted metrics of revenues and spending its clear that it is the spending that has gotten out of control. The reason is clear. The centuries old restraint upon Congressional spending was rooted in two factors. One, the necessity of doing a real budget and two, the partisan warfare over spending priorities.

Modern economics has blown the lid off those restraints with the corrupt and nonsensical concept that America can endlessly spend and borrow without consequence, printing money without care. This is leading us to catastrophe. Not crisis as we saw in 2007-8, but a disaster without repair. We must turn away from the path of the damned.
 
Windmills.

There is flour-making technology available that renders windmills extinct.. yet the federal government continues to pump billions of dollars into windmill maintenance, upkeep, and research.. With over 400,000 operational windmills nationwide, that's at least $40 billion dollars a year.

You could build at least 6-8 aircraft carriers for that amount.
 
Windmills.

There is flour-making technology available that renders windmills extinct.. yet the federal government continues to pump billions of dollars into windmill maintenance, upkeep, and research.. With over 400,000 operational windmills nationwide, that's at least $40 billion dollars a year.

You could build at least 6-8 aircraft carriers for that amount.

Dude.
 
I'd probably cut more than you would but I like where you're going. I'd probably go for a more non-interventionist, free trade policy than you, pull our troops out of everywhere, end the Federal drug war entirely (And encourage the state's to voluntarily repeal their own laws), and cut entitlements. Entitlements is really the only thing there that needs to be done "Softly", everything else can be cut immediately.
 
actually they used to actually check to see if you needed aid. I had no idea they had stopped doing it, or when
 
We have to cut something somewhere. If government spending created prosperity we would all be rich.

A bit of a flawd premise there:

1) the US are prosperous
2) because they are, they can spend big.

And ofcourse, spending big creates its own precedent. It has risen over the decades, and filibustering getting the budget in order (or rather, getting a budget period), obviously isn't helping.
 
Actually, there is a special rule where budgetary items only need 51 votes, so no filibuster...
Furthermore, filibuster is a "rule" that they don't have to observe anyhow...

So, blaming the Repubs for no budget since Pelosi and Obama teamed up is false.

Here's how it works in the US, the House creates the budget and sends the bill to the Senate.
The Senate rejects, agrees, or they agree to a similar version and the two houses then reconcile the differences... once agreed upon, it goes to the President.
The President signs or doesn't sign or vetoes...

Speaking on topics which we don't know about is called speaking from a position of ignorance, for the record.
 
Somewhere, somehow, MisterCooper is a prophet.

No, I'm serious, he might say insane things at times, but look at that writing. It's beautiful.

Lead the way man. :)
 
Spending cuts. Let me check the last time federal spending shrunk more than 1 or 2%.


If we actually balanced the budget right now the economy would instantly contract 10% and we'd fit the textbook definition of a depression before the secondary effects kicked in to shrink the economy further.

That is how hopelessly screwed we are right now. Technically the government spending $1 trillion it doesn't have every year prevents the depression that should have occured from showing up.

Instant depression OR no future for our country pick one.

Once the debt goes over $20 trillion, interest rates will never be allowed to go back up to 5% ever again.
That means we will have endless bubbles like the housing bubble disaster that set this country back decades.
Canada has more average household wealth now than Americans.

Since we are the world's reserve currency we don't have to worry about collapse before Europe or Japan collapses first. We will be the last to collapse.
 
...explanation of necessity of spending cuts was cut...
Here is another amazing but impossible idea in current environment: abolish universal suffrage and install right to vote only for those who pays more money in taxes than gets benefits from the state.

Unfortunately we will have to see until the whole thing collapses.
 
Snorrius said:
Here is another amazing but impossible idea in current environment: abolish universal suffrage and install right to vote only for those who pays more money in taxes than gets benefits from the state.

Unfortunately we will have to see until the whole thing collapses.

Well of course the Russian is saying we should abolish democracy.
 
Well of course the Russian is saying we should abolish democracy.
Non-universal suffrage is not equal to no democracy. You may want to study the history of democracy to grasp this thesis. The key part is that democratic societies always define who should be eligible for influencing state policies. Voter should feel responsibility for his choice, so one would know it is his money which are going to be spent. People who are living off benefits will be inclined to vote for anyone who promise even more benefits. Some of European countries are already in this trap - they have to make a hard decisions but they can not because their voters do not want to lose their benefits and are not able to accept reality.

Obviously, the reality will always find its way at the end: look at the Greece if you want to peek in the future of Spain or France.

As a remark I think that within a decade or two we will have a bit different democracies in Europe and universal suffrage will certainly be challenged.
 
Here is another amazing but impossible idea in current environment: abolish universal suffrage and install right to vote only for those who pays more money in taxes than gets benefits from the state.

Unfortunately we will have to see until the whole thing collapses.


Ironically, the core of the political problems that got us into this mess is the excessive political power of the wealthy over the poor. Our economy would do better with policies opposite of what you are suggesting. Because what you are suggesting would of a certainty lead to policies that crushed the economy.
 
The benefits the poor recieve are, actually, beneficial for the nation. What happened in Greece was bank investments that crapped all over the wrong places, not abysmally dumb social spending. Now they can't afford to fix it, but that's another issue entirely - if the state spent less, it can't "just" raise taxes about 10% whenever it gets into recession to balance the budget, it can't "just" lower social spending about 10% to balance the budget either because either way, money won't circulate properly.
 
Here is another amazing but impossible idea in current environment: abolish universal suffrage and install right to vote only for those who pays more money in taxes than gets benefits from the state.

Unfortunately we will have to see until the whole thing collapses.

We already tried that in the UK up until the 1920's.
 
Well, you were an empire then. Seems like it was working :lol:.

What does domestic spending have to do with Indian suppression and revolt?

edit: i'm an idiot. you were talking about universal suffrage. i have to read posts better.
 
Well If I was a gentleman at that time I would prefer owning a large part of the globe.

Those bloody liberals in parliament giving wimminz teh vote! :mad:
 
Top Bottom