I think we all agree that George Bush has presided over the biggest expansion ever in the Federal Government's spending. He has rightly taken a lot of grief for that. My question is, if you are going to bash him for doing that, where, aside from defense, should he cut the budget?

aside from defense


Out of curiosity, why aside from defense?

I'd have cut the entire Iraq war out. There's a quarter trillion, right there. And that doesn't count how many payouts we're financing to get the Polish military to put five guys in the motor pool, or whatever.

I'd also cut military giveaways to most every country on the planet, and handouts to any country where people aren't starving to death. I'd have added domestic welfare, also, but that saw a massive reduction already, during the Clinton years, which is part of what made us able to start paying down the debt before the Dark Times, before the Empire.

I think we could stand to pull troops out of Europe, I don't think there's still a Red Menace from the Russians, and downsize the Department of Homeland Paranoia.

I'd also like to see marijuana legalized and taxed. The savings from reduced lawenforcement busting potheads, plus the tax money, plus the shot in the economy. We could probably end farm subsidies by letting farmers grow regulated adn taxed reefer, instead of shipping the money to South American drug loards.

I'd want to put some of the money back into Pell grants that was taken out, though, since it's a long-term investment in the economy.

Off the top of my head.

I think we all agree that George Bush has presided over the biggest expansion ever in the Federal Government's spending. He has rightly taken a lot of grief for that. My question is, if you are going to bash him for doing that, where, aside from defense, should he cut the budget?

Everywhere else budget spending has increased. :shrug:

Farm subsidies are the first thing that come to mind, perhaps because I'm in the middle of reading Omnivore's Dilemma and find myself shocked by the way that the government is both distorting the corn market and adversely affecting citizens' health all in one foul swoop. Some forms of housing subsidies would probably make the list for much the same reasons. Handouts to Big Pharma for product development and enforcement of invalid patents - but not for actual science - should be cut too. Similarly, money being given to the Big Three for "energy efficiency research" actually seems to be paying for "research" in how to fend off competitive threats from products that really are more energy efficient, and taxpayers shouldn't be paying for that. Those programs need to be either redefined/retargeted or eliminated. Lastly, religiously driven social-engineering programs such as abstinence-only education should be funded by churches, not taxpayers.

That's just off the top of my head. I'll probably think of more later.

Out of curiosity, why aside from defense?

I'd have cut the entire Iraq war out. There's a quarter trillion, right there. And that doesn't count how many payouts we're financing to get the Polish military to put five guys in the motor pool, or whatever.

I'd also cut military giveaways to most every country on the planet, and handouts to any country where people aren't starving to death. I'd have added domestic welfare, also, but that saw a massive reduction already, during the Clinton years, which is part of what made us able to start paying down the debt before the Dark Times, before the Empire.

I think we could stand to pull troops out of Europe, I don't think there's still a Red Menace from the Russians, and downsize the Department of Homeland Paranoia.

I'd also like to see marijuana legalized and taxed. The savings from reduced lawenforcement busting potheads, plus the tax money, plus the shot in the economy. We could probably end farm subsidies by letting farmers grow regulated adn taxed reefer, instead of shipping the money to South American drug loards.

I'd want to put some of the money back into Pell grants that was taken out, though, since it's a long-term investment in the economy.

Off the top of my head.

There's one for reducing foreign aid.

I'm excluding defense on purpose. I want to see if people's (particularaly liberal's) aversion to Bush's spending is focused ONLY on the increase in defense spending, in which case they should be giving him credit for his increases elsewhere, or if they generally oppose the increase in government spending, which would make them economic conservatives or libertarians.

I'd also like to see marijuana legalized and taxed. The savings from reduced lawenforcement busting potheads, plus the tax money, plus the shot in the economy. We could probably end farm subsidies by letting farmers grow regulated adn taxed reefer, instead of shipping the money to South American drug loards.
I don't know how I missed that one. At one point while composing my own reply I thought about it, but then I got distracted. Thanks for mentioning it.

There's one for reducing foreign aid.

I'm excluding defense on purpose. I want to see if people's (particularaly liberal's) aversion to Bush's spending is focused ONLY on the increase in defense spending, in which case they should be giving him credit for his increases elsewhere, or if they generally oppose the increase in government spending, which would make them economic conservatives or libertarians.

I only favor spending where I think it's either necessary or a wise investment. Neccessary is something like a military strong enought to defend the United States, but we don't need it strong enough to also beat down the population of Iraq, which I don't think has anything to do with defending the United States. Wise investments are things like federal educational grants, which, a few years hence, will be keeping the United States in the industrialized, technical world, and minimal welfare programs to keep crazy and screwed up people fed so they aren't breaking into cars and houses to get money, but not enough that they can sit on their asses watching TV and playing video games all day in an air conditioned apartment they don't pay for.

The excess of military spending is targeted because it's so much spending, and has nothing to do with the lives of the people who are paying for it -- the common taxpayer.

I would add to the list the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Medicare drug bill, and all earmarked allocations.

minimal welfare programs to keep crazy and screwed up people fed so they aren't breaking into cars and houses to get money


I should add that reducing gun control laws would also help that problem, though it's not really on topic.

The excess of military spending is targeted because it's so much spending, and has nothing to do with the lives of the people who are paying for it -- the common taxpayer.
Would that it were so. Unfortunately, it does affect taxpayers' lives - negatively.

While I agree with much of what's been said, 60% of the federal budget pays for social programs like SS and medicare. I would like to see citizen dependence on government eliminated or at least brought down considerably.

...during the Clinton years, which is part of what made us able to start paying down the debt...Once again...there was never any effort made to pay down the debt. If you believe that there was (during the Clinton years or at any other moment in our lifetimes), you are working under a false assumption. Sorry, that's the fact.

In response to the question at hand...I would not cut anything. I would simply freeze the overall budget for the next five years. If you wanted to shift spending from one area to another, that would be fine. But, the overall total must not increase.

After that, if we can keep the FED from torpedoing the economic recovery, tax revenues would eventually catch up and surpass the spending.

I would eliminate the following departments or services

-BATF
-Rural Electrification Service
-Dept of Education
-Dept. of Housing
-Politicians' Pensions
-Unions for Federal Workers
-Earmarks
-Farm Subsidies
-All Federal welfare
-Social Security
-NEA


Certainly there are more but this is just for starters

Once again...there was never any effort made to pay down the debt. If you believe that there was (during the Clinton years or at any other moment in our lifetimes), you are working under a false assumption. Sorry, that's the fact.


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

I would eliminate the following departments or services

-BATF
-Rural Electrification Service
-Dept of Education
-Dept. of Housing
-Politicians' Pensions
-Unions for Federal Workers
-Earmarks
-Farm Subsidies
-All Federal welfare
-Social Security
-NEA


Certainly there are more but this is just for starters
I'm on board. But, you realize that no one has enough political capital to make that happen. It would be fought tooth and nail for every little cut of those programs...much less eliminating a single one. Eliminating them all will never happen. That's why my plan to freeze the whole budget is so elegant. Then, it becomes a discussion about fiscal control rather than "you want to throw little old ladies out on the street" and "You want to starve school children".

You saw what happened with Bush's proposal to convert a miniscule 5% of SS to "private accounts". If that can't be done in 8 years of a presidency, eiminating the thing is simply an impossiblity.

"They call me 'The Pork King,' they don't know how much I enjoy it." - Sen. Robert Byrd (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings) (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings)

Sen. Byrd has set a new standard for taxpayer-funded narcissism by convincing the West Virginia Legislature to erect a statue of himself in the state Capitol. The statue's completion violates state law prohibiting statues of government officials until they have been dead for half a century.

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/pagebuilder/13020.jpg


Byrd's statue is currently housed in the Capitol Rotunda, as shown in the picture, and it is said if you stand under the statue the senator's hand points directly at your pockets.

Other Byrd Projects

Robert C. Byrd Drive, from Beckley to Sophia (Byrd's hometown)
Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University
Robert C. Byrd Highway
Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution
Robert C. Byrd High School
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism
Robert C. Byrd Science Center
Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia
Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Center
Robert C. Byrd Technology Center at Alderson-Broaddus College
Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center, near Princeton
Robert C. Byrd Bridge between Huntington and Chesapeake, Ohio
Robert C. Byrd addition to the lodge at Oglebay Park, Wheeling
Robert C. Byrd Community Center, Pine Grove
Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships
Robert C. Byrd Expressway, U.S. 52 near Weirton
Robert C. Byrd Institute in Charleston
Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing
Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park
Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse
Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center
Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center
Robert C. Byrd Federal Building (there are two)
Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex
Robert C. Byrd Library and Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center
Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center
Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to the veteran's hospital in Huntington
Robert C. Byrd Industrial Park, Hardy County
Robert C. Byrd Scholastic Recognition Award
Robert C. Byrd Community Center in the naval station, Sugar Grove
Robert C. Byrd Clinic at the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/It was all lies. Look at the Treasury Dept's web site. The debt never went down during Clinton's years.

We discussed it at length in this thread and Freedom & Liberty made a graph from the data from the Treasury.

You can choose to believe what you want, but the FACTS are that the national debt was not reduced during Clinton's two terms...no matter what he or CNN say.

The excess of military spending is targeted because it's so much spending, and has nothing to do with the lives of the people who are paying for it -- the common taxpayer.
Would that it were so. Unfortunately, it does affect taxpayers' lives - negatively.
Do you really think that there is no benefit to US citizens in regards to military spending?
How about in terms if protection and intelligence...
More advanced training, R/D, better housing for soldiers...
Plus I believe current and past veterans should be paid well for their services, paid for disablities, and the children who lose their parents should be helped...
Also, I'm sure other countries appreciate our help and guidance (countries other than Iraq, cause we don't need to start that here too).
I happen to be a voting taxpayer, with no complaints of your "excess" military spending...
And I do believe that the US deficit is down from this time last year...
That's something, a start, if nothing else...

Do you really think that there is no benefit to US citizens in regards to military spending?
I believe there can be. As the military is currently constituted, deployed, and funded, I believe that the net balance is negative.

You can choose to believe what you want, but the FACTS are that the national debt was not reduced during Clinton's two terms...no matter what he or CNN say.
I just went to the Treasury website, and was somewhat surprised to find that you're correct: at no point did the total debt (held both publicly and in government accounts) decrease. However, another FACT we should not overlook is that we did come damn close to that goal in 1999 and have missed it by increasing amounts since.

Byrd is in a very poor state and he uses pork in lieu of welfare...
Cutting the budget isnt adequate,Folks-the military is great when they spend their money on personell and real military needs;the bureaucracies are fine when they're not padding things up-it's been written many times it takes the church 8 cents to the govenrment's dollar to get money to the poor.
We need some leaders who are smart enough to make real changes to the system-instead of a bunch of MBA yuppies who think making different numbers on a spread sheet will do the job...