-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Political Quiz Q10
- Thread starter Spiffy1
- Start date
See my answers on the last two questions.
Financially speaking, the federal government is so corrupt by the political system, they are incapable of handling money. Period.
The federal government's main purpose is to protect the nation (national defense). Not do ridiculous things like regulate the gallons of water in a toilet bowel, flow of a shower head, extort state governments by withholding funding if their views aren't followed (ex. highway money or 21 drinking age).
I could go on, but, what's the point.
(edit - damn spelling moron)
Financially speaking, the federal government is so corrupt by the political system, they are incapable of handling money. Period.
The federal government's main purpose is to protect the nation (national defense). Not do ridiculous things like regulate the gallons of water in a toilet bowel, flow of a shower head, extort state governments by withholding funding if their views aren't followed (ex. highway money or 21 drinking age).
I could go on, but, what's the point.
(edit - damn spelling moron)
You've got to be kidding. The Federal budget is approximately $2 Trillion this year. Cutting it in half would leave $1 Trillion. The defense budget is 4/10 Trillion; interest on the federal debt eats up most of the rest. You would be doing away with all federal spending except defense and interest. No highways, bridges, public transportation, health & welfare, SBA loans, hundreds more -- virtually no federal programs at all. The nation would collapes in minutes. Or, you could salvage some fo the more important programs, like air traffic controllers, but then you'd have to cut defense. That's what I was saying to Bob S earlier; he misunderstood and thought I was talking about cutting defense, first. Nope; it would just have to be cut as a consequence of a 50% cut in spending.
We can't cut the interest payments; we owe (and pay) most of them to foreigners who would call in their loads if we didn't pay the interest; and we can't afford to pay off the loans. The crash would be enormous.
We can't cut the interest payments; we owe (and pay) most of them to foreigners who would call in their loads if we didn't pay the interest; and we can't afford to pay off the loans. The crash would be enormous.
Highways and other public works are by definition the responsibility of the states, not the fed govt. That is how the fed govt was set up to run. Not the bloated wealth eating monster we have now.
The fed "debt" is a macro-economic issue that is not as simple as money owed ot a bank (forign or domestic). I don't claim to understand it, but the solution is in economic growth, not "payments" like your car loan.
I don't mean to sound demeaning, but, many people don't understand the basic consepts of macroeconomics. I only have a small grasp on it from college.
The fed "debt" is a macro-economic issue that is not as simple as money owed ot a bank (forign or domestic). I don't claim to understand it, but the solution is in economic growth, not "payments" like your car loan.
I don't mean to sound demeaning, but, many people don't understand the basic consepts of macroeconomics. I only have a small grasp on it from college.
I agree the federal debt is a convoluted issue about which economists have been disagreeing for decades. The interest on the debt, on the other hand, is a pretty simple issue. You pay it or you're in trouble...
The states' interests you describe may once have been in effect. However, since the days of the first national highway, they are gone, over, done with, and the reality of today is what we are dealing with.
This reality is the basic issue between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives are trying to "conserve" the past, and would like nothing better than a return to the "good old days" (which were never as good as conservatives remember).
The states' interests you describe may once have been in effect. However, since the days of the first national highway, they are gone, over, done with, and the reality of today is what we are dealing with.
This reality is the basic issue between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives are trying to "conserve" the past, and would like nothing better than a return to the "good old days" (which were never as good as conservatives remember).
????OkeeDon said:
Read this
It's the GPO's history of the US Budget. (page 52 covers 2002-2010).
To summarize (2006 estimates in millions):
National defense = $465,871
Human resources = $1,675,591 This is Social Security, Medicare...
Interest = $177,948
In summary, Human resources is 3x larger than national defense.
National Defense = 18.7% of government outlays
Human resources = 65.6% of government outlays
Interest = 7.1% of government outlays
OK, the technical difference is that you're looking at both on-budget and off-budget spending, and you're actually correct, because the subject of the question was spending, not budget. My bad.
However, you're including what is known as entitlements. The very word is an indication -- they can't be cut because people are entitled to them. You can cut future benefits, so those who are not yet eligible will have a differnt entitltement, but you can't cut what is being paid, now.
Oh, I suppose you could technically cut current payments, but you'd better be prepared to duck.
So, if you leave out entitlements, whether on budget or not (medicare is generally on budget; social security is off budget), defense becomes the number one category, and my suggestions pretty much become true.
It can be argued, by the way, that social security is not actual federal spending; the social security system is a separate entity, organized under the federal laws but technically separate, like the post office. I suppose that's why it's off budget.
My point remains succinct; you can't cut federal spending by 50% or more. Not possible. Not even close to being on a wish list. You can cut taxes by that much, of course, the Bush administration has been doing their best. But, that's only possible if you don't care about the effects down the road. I don't care what economists conjure up in their magic spells and incantations; sooner or later you have to pay the piper.
However, you're including what is known as entitlements. The very word is an indication -- they can't be cut because people are entitled to them. You can cut future benefits, so those who are not yet eligible will have a differnt entitltement, but you can't cut what is being paid, now.
Oh, I suppose you could technically cut current payments, but you'd better be prepared to duck.
So, if you leave out entitlements, whether on budget or not (medicare is generally on budget; social security is off budget), defense becomes the number one category, and my suggestions pretty much become true.
It can be argued, by the way, that social security is not actual federal spending; the social security system is a separate entity, organized under the federal laws but technically separate, like the post office. I suppose that's why it's off budget.
My point remains succinct; you can't cut federal spending by 50% or more. Not possible. Not even close to being on a wish list. You can cut taxes by that much, of course, the Bush administration has been doing their best. But, that's only possible if you don't care about the effects down the road. I don't care what economists conjure up in their magic spells and incantations; sooner or later you have to pay the piper.
Don, as this is a political discussion spawned by a political poll that was used to define positions, I would point out that what one person thinks is an entitlement is not necessarily what another person thinks is an entitlement.
Consequently, the entitlements CAN be cut. The question of WHICH entitlements would be a whole different debate. Followed by another debate over how much they could be cut. But the fact is that the term entitlement does not have a universal agreement on the definition.
Consequently, the entitlements CAN be cut. The question of WHICH entitlements would be a whole different debate. Followed by another debate over how much they could be cut. But the fact is that the term entitlement does not have a universal agreement on the definition.
I'm not sure I would agree with that; without research, I would think the term "entitlement" is pretty well defined and accepted.
But, that's actually unimportant. What I'd rather hear is support -- from anyone -- that they realistically think that federal spending can be cut by 50% or more. That's all I'm arguing, that the size of the cut as proposed by the question is totally unrealistic.
In order to convince me, one would have to lay out, at least in broad categories, where that spending could take place. My position is that it is impossible and undoable.
But, that's actually unimportant. What I'd rather hear is support -- from anyone -- that they realistically think that federal spending can be cut by 50% or more. That's all I'm arguing, that the size of the cut as proposed by the question is totally unrealistic.
In order to convince me, one would have to lay out, at least in broad categories, where that spending could take place. My position is that it is impossible and undoable.
Realistically, I do believe the federal budget can be cut by 50% but I don't beleive it could be cut that much in ONE YEAR, it would have to be phased in.
Further, I also believe that to limit the discussion to "FEDERAL BUDGET" is a huge mistake and is misreading the question. The question in the poll does not limit the discussion to only Federal spending. The question clearly states "governement" spending, that would include local, county, and state spending too.
So based on the ORIGINAL question, I think there is a lot of waste and 50% of the total could be cut.
Further, I also believe that to limit the discussion to "FEDERAL BUDGET" is a huge mistake and is misreading the question. The question in the poll does not limit the discussion to only Federal spending. The question clearly states "governement" spending, that would include local, county, and state spending too.
So based on the ORIGINAL question, I think there is a lot of waste and 50% of the total could be cut.
I may be the odd man out here, but I actually think "cold turkey" is the way to implement such a cut. That's the only way to eliminate the waste without beaurocrats finding all kinds of ways to save shift the waste rather than eliminate it.
You combine that with a plan where tax cuts [which I do support] wouldn't take effect until the Federal debt was on par with "good business practices" [maybe that number is a fraction of current, maybe 0 or even negative, but I know it's not the current level], you'll have some very unpopular polititions for a while, but I think the long term results wouldn't even take very long to see.
You combine that with a plan where tax cuts [which I do support] wouldn't take effect until the Federal debt was on par with "good business practices" [maybe that number is a fraction of current, maybe 0 or even negative, but I know it's not the current level], you'll have some very unpopular polititions for a while, but I think the long term results wouldn't even take very long to see.
I agree that 'cold turkey' is good in theory, but given how big the government is, cutting all the necessary jobs, services, parades, etc to get the 50% cut in spending would cause economic choas and probably drive the world into an economic depression.
I'm not seeing world-wide economic depression, so much as temperary domestic chaos. Proabably half of the reduced federal employees would soon be working for local state or charitable organizations.
Ideally, the other half would provide enough of a short spike in unemployment to jump start domestic manufacturing; but, I know that's way too idealistic. Former Fed employees spinning on lug nuts? Yeah, they'd be too busy feeding the UAW even more bad ideas, than getting anything done.
Unfortunately, I still don't see any other way to insure waste isn't just shifted rather than cut.
Ideally, the other half would provide enough of a short spike in unemployment to jump start domestic manufacturing; but, I know that's way too idealistic. Former Fed employees spinning on lug nuts? Yeah, they'd be too busy feeding the UAW even more bad ideas, than getting anything done.
Unfortunately, I still don't see any other way to insure waste isn't just shifted rather than cut.
I'd like to hear an example of just one such cut. Not a generics statement like "cut waste" or "cut pork", but a specific proposal for cutting a specifc expenditure. To make it easy, you pick which level of government -- federal, state or local. However, I'm asking for a real cut, a significant one which would substantially contribute to the 50%. Therefore, the cut should be at least 1% of the current spending for that level of government. For example, you might propose that your school board do away with school buses.
Obviously, you know in advance that whatever you choose, I'm going to do my best to poke holes in it and prove that it can't be done. I may not succeed in every case, but remember, the total cut is 50% or more, and even if you do successfully defend a 1% cut, you still have to do it 49 more times.
I say it can't be done.
Obviously, you know in advance that whatever you choose, I'm going to do my best to poke holes in it and prove that it can't be done. I may not succeed in every case, but remember, the total cut is 50% or more, and even if you do successfully defend a 1% cut, you still have to do it 49 more times.
I say it can't be done.
Of course, not. But, it's ridiculous and potentially even harmful to the "cause" to start off with an impossible proposal. If one were to propose, say, a 10% cut in spending, with the promise to revisit the subject once that was done successfully, I'd support that. Who knows? It might even be possible to get part way to 50%, that way.Av8r3400 said:
But, it's silly to even think that it could be tried. The present administration was elected on a campaign platform to cut spending and cut the size of government, along with miscellaneous promises like no nation-building. So, what do we have? Record spending, record government size, and hundreds of billions of dollars going to nation building.
Now, here's the ironic thing about that. After four years of those borken promises, all you supposedly smart people went back and re-elected the same crew! I have to laugh. To hear you guys calling for a 50% spending cut is obscenely funny when your own crew can't cut it by even a penny!
oster_ooDang Don....OkeeDon said:Of course, not. But, it's ridiculous and potentially even harmful to the "cause" to start off with an impossible proposal. If one were to propose, say, a 10% cut in spending, with the promise to revisit the subject once that was done successfully, I'd support that. Who knows? It might even be possible to get part way to 50%, that way.
But, it's silly to even think that it could be tried. The present administration was elected on a campaign platform to cut spending and cut the size of government, along with miscellaneous promises like no nation-building. So, what do we have? Record spending, record government size, and hundreds of billions of dollars going to nation building.
Now, here's the ironic thing about that. After four years of those borken promises, all you supposedly smart people went back and re-elected the same crew! I have to laugh. To hear you guys calling for a 50% spending cut is obscenely funny when your own crew can't cut it by even a penny!
I thought/suggested/requested that much of this would go much better without the jabs inserted into an otherwise intelligent post.
Anyway, can you and Mrs. Don in a time of need reduce your spending 5-10% in a year? I'll bet you (and each of us) could.
Repeat for a few years and lets see what happens.
Sorry about that. It was irresistable.bczoom said:
Of course, we could -- and have. For example, we had 4 vehicles registered for 2 drivers -- a motor home, a pickup, a mini van, and my wife's little go-to-work car. I sold off the motor home, the pickup and the minivan, replaced them with the super-efficient Sprinter RV (which gets better mileage than any of the vehicles I replaced), got a trailer to replace the pickup, and cut my car insurance in half. That saved me about albout 3% of our income in one swell foop.bczoom said:
Here's the problem -- the only way I can save additional car insurance is to (1) reduce coverage, which opens me to drastic danger to our assets; or (2) to sell one of the two remaiing cars. Let's say I sell a car. The next year, the only way I can get that reduction is to walk. I wouldn't even be able to get to the neighborhood convenience store with my heart condition, and there is no public transportation in our suburban city.
We have always been frugal with food; I bet our food budget is far lower than anyone else on this forum. We cut our medical costs to almost nothing by joining a Medicare Advantage Plan HMO as soon as we passed 65. We owe nothing on any of our properties except insurance and taxes; the only way we could cut those amounts is by selling them off and buying something much smaller.
Of course, then I would have to sell my tractor, all of the trailers and the boat, because I wouldn't have room to keep them any more. That would further cut our expenses, however.
We have always lived with fewer entertainment costs than most; our largest TV is a 25" floor swivel model my Mother purchased over 20 years ago and which I inherited, replacing the 19" table model that's now in my office. I'm typing this on a 6 year old Dell computer purchased by my former business. I could get rid of Dish Network and DSL and go with an antenna. I wouldn't need dial-up because I would have to cut out the phone.
So, yes, I could probably cut down to 50% of my spending. I would be home-bound in a trailer, with no cars, no phone, no travel, no internet, and nothing but 3 broadcast channels on an old TV -- until it broke. I would still be able to pay taxes and insurance on the trailer, so they wouldn't take it away from me, and I could afford food, if I could find someone to get it for me.
The point is, our nation could also cut 50% of it's spending, but our roads and bridges would crumble, we'd have less police and fire protection, our defense would be cut to the bone, we would learn to live with disease and filth -- in other words, we'd be back in about the 16th Century, which is where apparently most Conservatives are comfortable, as far as I can tell from their social attitudes.
Ouch.... that hurt but I'm sure it was just another irresistable jab.OkeeDon said:
You obviously have recognized and adjusted/corrected for excesses in your personal life and finances. I'm just asking the government to do the same.
I didn't suggest to get rid of everything.
The HUGE red herring that Don tosses in, that seems obvious, is that no government operates a budget the way private citizens operate a budget, nor do they operate a budget that is even close to as frugal as a very wasteful business. City, County, State and Federal governments are full of people who have the mentality that if they "don't spend it now the budget will be cut next year so we better spend it so we can ask for more."
No question that a 50% cut would be massive, but also no question that a 10% or perhaps even 20% cut would be easily accomplished. Beyond that and I believe we will see some real trimming of programs, elimination of departments, etc. And I think that would be a good thing. It would be nice to have the government seriously face a long term budget crisis, as opposed to the one-year crisis cycle they have until they can raise taxes again and get out of their cycle! It would force them to utilize their resources less wastefully, it would force them to determine which programs are truely necessary (do we need to support Public Television? The 4th of July Parade? TIF districts in non-depressed areas? etc)
No question that a 50% cut would be massive, but also no question that a 10% or perhaps even 20% cut would be easily accomplished. Beyond that and I believe we will see some real trimming of programs, elimination of departments, etc. And I think that would be a good thing. It would be nice to have the government seriously face a long term budget crisis, as opposed to the one-year crisis cycle they have until they can raise taxes again and get out of their cycle! It would force them to utilize their resources less wastefully, it would force them to determine which programs are truely necessary (do we need to support Public Television? The 4th of July Parade? TIF districts in non-depressed areas? etc)
jdwilson44
New member
If you are looking for suggestions on how to cut federal spending here are mine:
1) The goverment absolutely - positively MUST have a balanced budget. According to http://www.federalbudget.com/ the US goverment spent $352 billion dollars ( our billions of dollars by the way) interest payments.
How does that translate into your pocketbook? - it means each and every citizen in this country gave up approximately $1213.79 to pay on INTEREST.
Balanced budget = $1213.79 savings per citizen.
2) Get our military out of all of the foreign countries that they are currently stationed in - once again - according to http://www.federalbudget.com/ the defense department budget for FY06 is approximately $550 billion dollars. If we as a country weren't "projecting power" around the world and doing nation rebuilding in Iraq how low could this budget go? I honestly don't know. But if the liberals weren't so opposed to guns in the hands of private owners and we had what the founding fathers intended - a citizen militia - we would be secure from invasion and we would most assuredly be able to cut down the amount of the national budget that went to the defense department.
How much does this translate into your pocketbook?
$1896.55 for every citizen in the country. That amount of money buys me a pretty nice M1 Garand, Bushmaster AR-15, Sig 556 etc. with which to defend myself and my country.
Projected savings? I dont know really - maybe we could cut the budget in half so we would have $948.27 per citizen.
3) Health and Human Services - according to the website above - takes approx $675 billion from the federal budget - accounting for approx $2327.58 from every citizen. I don't know about you but $2327.58 back in my pocket would more than account for any medical procedures I may have had to pay for over the last year. Even if I had to pay for them out of my pocket I would still be money ahead. If I put that money into an investment account over the years I would probably have a pretty nice "health fund" to help me thru health problems when I got older.
How much could we save? If it was run efficiently you might save up to half - meaning $1163.79 per citizen of savings.
4) Federal money given back to the states - why do we send money to the Federal Goverment that they can then decide to withhold from the states if the states don't obey federal guidelines? It seems to make a lot more logical sense to me that if the money is going back to the states anyway then it would be a lot more efficient for us to just send the money directly to the states in the first place - in other words take whatever portion of the federal budget gets allocated back to the states and cut it all right out - let the states make up the difference by increasing state taxes, and then lower federal income tax by the same amount.
I dont have a figure for this - so I dont know what the savings would be - I have to take a guess that it would probably amount to at least $500 per citizen.
5) Get rid of the any Federal involvement in our school systems. I have no idea how much of the budget is spent on education - but similar to my comment #4 above - I don't understand why we send money to the federal goverment that is then "given" back to our local schools if they adhere to federal guidelines. This is thinly disguised blackmail in my book. The proponents of federal oversight of schools would say that it makes all schools equal - my argument is - yes you are correct, it makes them all equally bad.
Department of Education budget - approx $75 billion, - or approxmately $258.00 from every citizen in the country.
Savings from elimination = $258.00 per citizen.
What other cuts could be made? Frankly I dont know. If I add up the numbers from what I mentioned above I come up with $4083.85 - PER CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. I am sure my personal wages are higher than the average so for me personally that number would be higher.
According to some stats I dug up on the web the median income of an American household is around $40,000 with a tax rate of about 17.5% - or approx $7000 per year. $4083.85 is more than half of $7000 - so yes - I do believe we could potentially cut 50% or more out of the federal budget.
You must remember - the income tax did not become permanent until sometime around the First World War - there had been income taxes before - like to finance the Civil War (funny how taxes always need to be raised to finance war and we are in a war with no defined end right now isn't it?). So how did the Federal goverment survive - how did we all survive before this? The answer is the goverment was a lot smaller and we as citizens got along just fine. We were in fact quite a bit more free back then than we are now.
To say that the federal goverment budget cannot be cut back by 50% or more is nothing less than a failure of imagination. If you think people deserve all these services than go volunteer or create an organization to supply them. You have no right to use the federal goverment as an enforcement tool to bully me into paying for things I may not agree with and/or want to pay for. Everybody in this country keeps crying about how the schools suck, how there is no personal initiative or responsibility any more, etc. The direct cause of this is the expansion of the federal goverment and it's intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
1) The goverment absolutely - positively MUST have a balanced budget. According to http://www.federalbudget.com/ the US goverment spent $352 billion dollars ( our billions of dollars by the way) interest payments.
How does that translate into your pocketbook? - it means each and every citizen in this country gave up approximately $1213.79 to pay on INTEREST.
Balanced budget = $1213.79 savings per citizen.
2) Get our military out of all of the foreign countries that they are currently stationed in - once again - according to http://www.federalbudget.com/ the defense department budget for FY06 is approximately $550 billion dollars. If we as a country weren't "projecting power" around the world and doing nation rebuilding in Iraq how low could this budget go? I honestly don't know. But if the liberals weren't so opposed to guns in the hands of private owners and we had what the founding fathers intended - a citizen militia - we would be secure from invasion and we would most assuredly be able to cut down the amount of the national budget that went to the defense department.
How much does this translate into your pocketbook?
$1896.55 for every citizen in the country. That amount of money buys me a pretty nice M1 Garand, Bushmaster AR-15, Sig 556 etc. with which to defend myself and my country.
Projected savings? I dont know really - maybe we could cut the budget in half so we would have $948.27 per citizen.
3) Health and Human Services - according to the website above - takes approx $675 billion from the federal budget - accounting for approx $2327.58 from every citizen. I don't know about you but $2327.58 back in my pocket would more than account for any medical procedures I may have had to pay for over the last year. Even if I had to pay for them out of my pocket I would still be money ahead. If I put that money into an investment account over the years I would probably have a pretty nice "health fund" to help me thru health problems when I got older.
How much could we save? If it was run efficiently you might save up to half - meaning $1163.79 per citizen of savings.
4) Federal money given back to the states - why do we send money to the Federal Goverment that they can then decide to withhold from the states if the states don't obey federal guidelines? It seems to make a lot more logical sense to me that if the money is going back to the states anyway then it would be a lot more efficient for us to just send the money directly to the states in the first place - in other words take whatever portion of the federal budget gets allocated back to the states and cut it all right out - let the states make up the difference by increasing state taxes, and then lower federal income tax by the same amount.
I dont have a figure for this - so I dont know what the savings would be - I have to take a guess that it would probably amount to at least $500 per citizen.
5) Get rid of the any Federal involvement in our school systems. I have no idea how much of the budget is spent on education - but similar to my comment #4 above - I don't understand why we send money to the federal goverment that is then "given" back to our local schools if they adhere to federal guidelines. This is thinly disguised blackmail in my book. The proponents of federal oversight of schools would say that it makes all schools equal - my argument is - yes you are correct, it makes them all equally bad.
Department of Education budget - approx $75 billion, - or approxmately $258.00 from every citizen in the country.
Savings from elimination = $258.00 per citizen.
What other cuts could be made? Frankly I dont know. If I add up the numbers from what I mentioned above I come up with $4083.85 - PER CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. I am sure my personal wages are higher than the average so for me personally that number would be higher.
According to some stats I dug up on the web the median income of an American household is around $40,000 with a tax rate of about 17.5% - or approx $7000 per year. $4083.85 is more than half of $7000 - so yes - I do believe we could potentially cut 50% or more out of the federal budget.
You must remember - the income tax did not become permanent until sometime around the First World War - there had been income taxes before - like to finance the Civil War (funny how taxes always need to be raised to finance war and we are in a war with no defined end right now isn't it?). So how did the Federal goverment survive - how did we all survive before this? The answer is the goverment was a lot smaller and we as citizens got along just fine. We were in fact quite a bit more free back then than we are now.
To say that the federal goverment budget cannot be cut back by 50% or more is nothing less than a failure of imagination. If you think people deserve all these services than go volunteer or create an organization to supply them. You have no right to use the federal goverment as an enforcement tool to bully me into paying for things I may not agree with and/or want to pay for. Everybody in this country keeps crying about how the schools suck, how there is no personal initiative or responsibility any more, etc. The direct cause of this is the expansion of the federal goverment and it's intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
jdwilson44
New member
OkeeDon said:
Wrong - they are called entitlements as a way to disguise that they really are - which is political giveaways to gain votes.
I found the quote below the other day - which sent a chill down my spine because it perfectly illustrates the current predicament of our country. Think you can cut back "entitlements" ?? Well guess what - you are going to lose them anyway when the goverment falls, the country descends into chaos, those who can defend themselves and those who can't die at the hands of others who can take what they want. There is no such thing as an "entitlement". Those who think so are oblivious to the rules of nature and history.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest
civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this
sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great
courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance
to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From
dependence back into bondage."
~Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in "The
Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic," published 1776.
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest
civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this
sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great
courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance
to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From
dependence back into bondage."
~Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in "The
Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic," published 1776.
Go do a little research on the rise of the Third Reich and how the failure of the Weimar Republic (thru bankruptcy) led to the search for order, and the German people falling for the Nazis promises of order and return to normalcy - then do a little historical research on how dictatorships treat their citizens. If the world described in your research results is the kind of world you want to live in then by all means keep arguing for the continuance of "entitlements" and watch the wheels of history turn as the country descends into bankruptcy and eventual dictatorship.
The average age of the "greatest" civiliations has been 200 years? How convenient that the number is just slightly less than ours, and seems to indicate that we are endangered. Of course, it depends very much on which civilizations the obviously biased authors consider the "greatest" and whether it gave them the outcome they desired. They just make the blanket claim, of course, they don't provide any documentation or footnotes. Bah.
Leaping from that illusionary picture to suggesting that we will soon be in the throes of a dictatorship is luidicrous. It's in your mind, only. There is nothing in reality that you can offer to prove it, unless you have suddenly been granted the ability to know the future. I sincerely doubt that, because if you were granted that facility, there is no doubt that you'd use it to change the future.
So, we're left with the reality of the Here and Now, and for the reasonably forseeable future, and that reality includes entitlements, whether you accept it or not. You can call them whatever slurred name you chose; it doesn't change the reality. They are payments from the government to the people, regardless of the reason, and you cannot cut them without chaos.
Leaping from that illusionary picture to suggesting that we will soon be in the throes of a dictatorship is luidicrous. It's in your mind, only. There is nothing in reality that you can offer to prove it, unless you have suddenly been granted the ability to know the future. I sincerely doubt that, because if you were granted that facility, there is no doubt that you'd use it to change the future.
So, we're left with the reality of the Here and Now, and for the reasonably forseeable future, and that reality includes entitlements, whether you accept it or not. You can call them whatever slurred name you chose; it doesn't change the reality. They are payments from the government to the people, regardless of the reason, and you cannot cut them without chaos.
jdwilson44 said:
I'm not sure where to start.
The one thing that is absolutely certain is that our present leadership is going about it in entirely the wrong way. Cutting taxes before cutting spending, then increasing the spending while still keeping the tax cuts, is about as far away from a balanced budget as one can get. It is an absolute recipe for disaster, and is perhaps the worst thing the Bush administration, in cooperation with the GOP Congress, has foisted upon us.
The first thing we have to do is work together to get rid of the ruinous current government, then we can debate of how to reach the goal we both want to achieve.
Several people on this forum have attempted to justify their vote for the current administration by describing it as the "lesser of two evils". Well, what they ended up with is just about as evil as it can get -- on the major issues. Yeah, on some of the minor "hot button" issues like whether or not we should have National Public Radio, they might not have liked the other choice. But, my gosh, their choice is pushing the country towards bankruptcy! How much more evil can it get?
Second, we have what the founders envisioned -- an able and well-equipped (well, they were before Iraq, anyway) National Guard. Despite their name, they are organized on a state and local level, with caches of effective arms in armories around the country. This is such an obvious solution over having citizens own howitzers and RPG's and tanks and Bradley's and such, that the individual citizen's "arms" are almost laughable. You're living in a fantasy world born of that movie where teenage kids went to the mountains to fight Russian invaders, Red something or other. Those days are over; our attackers are likely to be indviduals with bombs strapped to their bodies, and your silly weapons will do no more good against them than they do in Israel, where every citizen is armed by the government and trained to use them, yet people still die from attacks.
What liberals are against is irresponsible gun ownership. Like the fellow in West Palm Beach two nights ago, who broke into his former girlfriend's house, took the pistol he knew she kept in the nightstand, and shot her new boyfriend (fortunately only wounding him). Then, he abducted the woman, led a high speed police chase where he shot at several deputies's cars and wounded one officer, then tried to highhack another car, where upon deputies killed him and wounded the innocent carjack victim. How far would he have gotten if that first gun was not there? Those stories are repeated in every section of America, every day, by the thousands, and they are all made worse by guns. And, you know it, but will never admit it, because that might be a sign of weakness in your obsession.
After spending several days in my local hospital, I was transferred to a regional hospital where they specialized in the defibrillators (mine is the same brand and type as Dick Cheney's). I was there for 24 hours. The total cost for that one day, including doctors, hospital services and the device itself was -- drum roll, please -- $104,000. You could have 20 years of your "savings" wiped out in 24 hours, and then where would you be?
Now, in my case, private insurance paid for most of it. Of course, that private insurance cost my wife and I almost $2,000 per year, and I still had a substantial amount of the bill to pay.
Now, let's look at private insurance. What's happening? Well, I'm reading more and more articles about how more and more private corporations are cutting back on health insurance programs. In many cases, retired workers are seeing the health insurance they were counting on being stripped away from them. At the same time, the Bush administration is hell-bent on cutting back Medicare payments. My guess is, unless you have accumulated a nest egg of several million dollars by the time you retire, you'll be wiped out if you encounter a serious health problem. And, even if you have the nest egg, by the time you pay those medical bills, we'll get a good idea of how much you like your lifestyle cut that much.
See, that's the basis of most of the crackpot ideas I hear about how to reinvent government -- you young whippersnappers haven't lived long enough and experienced enough to understand reality.
Duh! Well, we agree on that one. We only disagree on how to achieve it. There are two ways -- cut all spending, or decide on what is a rational expense of government, and use a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes to achieve that level.jdwilson44 said:
The one thing that is absolutely certain is that our present leadership is going about it in entirely the wrong way. Cutting taxes before cutting spending, then increasing the spending while still keeping the tax cuts, is about as far away from a balanced budget as one can get. It is an absolute recipe for disaster, and is perhaps the worst thing the Bush administration, in cooperation with the GOP Congress, has foisted upon us.
The first thing we have to do is work together to get rid of the ruinous current government, then we can debate of how to reach the goal we both want to achieve.
Again, we agree. And, again, the immeidate solution is to get rid of the current leaders who are pushing us further down that road than we have ever been.jdwilson44 said:
Several people on this forum have attempted to justify their vote for the current administration by describing it as the "lesser of two evils". Well, what they ended up with is just about as evil as it can get -- on the major issues. Yeah, on some of the minor "hot button" issues like whether or not we should have National Public Radio, they might not have liked the other choice. But, my gosh, their choice is pushing the country towards bankruptcy! How much more evil can it get?
Oh, c'mon. Liberals are not opposed to a citizen militia. That's exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended. But, those were different times. First of all, wars could won or lost with the weapons a citizen might have. That's not the case, today, unless you have that nuke I pictured in another thread. Your little popguns are not going to be very effective if this country is attacked. Get real.jdwilson44 said:
Second, we have what the founders envisioned -- an able and well-equipped (well, they were before Iraq, anyway) National Guard. Despite their name, they are organized on a state and local level, with caches of effective arms in armories around the country. This is such an obvious solution over having citizens own howitzers and RPG's and tanks and Bradley's and such, that the individual citizen's "arms" are almost laughable. You're living in a fantasy world born of that movie where teenage kids went to the mountains to fight Russian invaders, Red something or other. Those days are over; our attackers are likely to be indviduals with bombs strapped to their bodies, and your silly weapons will do no more good against them than they do in Israel, where every citizen is armed by the government and trained to use them, yet people still die from attacks.
What liberals are against is irresponsible gun ownership. Like the fellow in West Palm Beach two nights ago, who broke into his former girlfriend's house, took the pistol he knew she kept in the nightstand, and shot her new boyfriend (fortunately only wounding him). Then, he abducted the woman, led a high speed police chase where he shot at several deputies's cars and wounded one officer, then tried to highhack another car, where upon deputies killed him and wounded the innocent carjack victim. How far would he have gotten if that first gun was not there? Those stories are repeated in every section of America, every day, by the thousands, and they are all made worse by guns. And, you know it, but will never admit it, because that might be a sign of weakness in your obsession.
Boy, are you in for a rude awakening. In 2004, while I was still on private insurance, I was diagnosed with Cardiac Myopathy, or heart failure. The result is an enlarged left ventricle, partially dead from silent heart attacks, that can no longer pump blood effectively. The result from that is often Ventricular Tachycardia, or Vtach, which is a heart stoppage from fibrillation. While Atrial fibrillation is uncomfortable, Ventricular fibrillation leads to death in minutes if not arrested. There is an increasing movement to have protable defibrillators placed at civic centers, sports arenas and such, but for someone with my condition, the best answer in an ICD, an implanted cardiac defibrillator.jdwilson44 said:
After spending several days in my local hospital, I was transferred to a regional hospital where they specialized in the defibrillators (mine is the same brand and type as Dick Cheney's). I was there for 24 hours. The total cost for that one day, including doctors, hospital services and the device itself was -- drum roll, please -- $104,000. You could have 20 years of your "savings" wiped out in 24 hours, and then where would you be?
Now, in my case, private insurance paid for most of it. Of course, that private insurance cost my wife and I almost $2,000 per year, and I still had a substantial amount of the bill to pay.
Now, let's look at private insurance. What's happening? Well, I'm reading more and more articles about how more and more private corporations are cutting back on health insurance programs. In many cases, retired workers are seeing the health insurance they were counting on being stripped away from them. At the same time, the Bush administration is hell-bent on cutting back Medicare payments. My guess is, unless you have accumulated a nest egg of several million dollars by the time you retire, you'll be wiped out if you encounter a serious health problem. And, even if you have the nest egg, by the time you pay those medical bills, we'll get a good idea of how much you like your lifestyle cut that much.
See, that's the basis of most of the crackpot ideas I hear about how to reinvent government -- you young whippersnappers haven't lived long enough and experienced enough to understand reality.
I could go on about your arguments in those areas, too, but I'm getting tired, and I suspect its just a waste of time. To say that any of these cuts would actually work is delusional. Sure, everything can be cut a little, but there are worthwhile things that have been cut that need to be restored, so the balance is likely to be less than zero.jdwilson44 said:
jdwilson44
New member
OkeeDon said:
I agree on that - I have no love for the Bush Administration as I had no love for the Clinton administration - at this point I have absolutely no confidence that either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to fix this problem - which is why my responses may seem radical to you because I think that we are at the point where we have exhausted all the alternatives and more of the same is just going to get us in serious trouble.
Wars are still won and lost with weapons that civilians can "have" - except in this country - where civilians can't have them. Prior to 1934 it was legal for US citizens to own pretty much any firearm they wanted. Many WWI veterans came home with German machine guns and US issued Browing Automatic rifles. Same thing happened after WWII. At the time of the American Revolution the American militia (Minutemen) had rifles that were better (Pennysylvania longrifle) than the weapons carried by the British troops. You seem to forget that we had major problems in Vietnam from people who were essentially a citizen militia (Viet Cong) and we are having major problems in Iraq from people who are "insurgents" - in essence a citizen militia. The Afghanistan mujahadeen were in essence a civilian militia and they caused havoc for the Russians during their time in Afghanistan. If you think that all wars automatically go nuclear then yes - we are pretty much screwed. But history shows that is not the case. Wars are still fought on the ground by infantrymen shooting guns at each other. Iraq and Afghanistan have both shown this - one of the toughtest fights the US has had in some time was when the Marines went into Fallujah a couple of years ago. All the high tech weapons at our disposal meant nothing - it came down to a house to house, gravestone to gravestone battle between US Marines and the insurgents who were holding the city.
A man and his rifle still rule the modern battlefield.
The National Guard was not brought into being until 1903 - so you cannot claim that it was envisioned by the Founding fathers. US Code defines the militia:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The founding fathers wanted a civilian militia. I am tired too or I would dig out the quotes to prove it. As far as your Israel reference you are getting your chicken before your egg. Part of the reason why Israel is suffering from suicide bombings is BECAUSE they are armed. At one point Israel armed teachers in schools because terrorists were coming into schools and shooting up the kids. Once the teachers were armed this became too hard of a target so the next "advance" if you want to call it that from the terrorists is to go to suicide bombing. The guns were effective in doing exactly what they were intended to do - stop attacks against schoolchildren:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp
I can't understand why you think that elimating guns will somehow remove them from criminals hands. After isn't the definition of a criminal somebody who breaks the law? Why would a criminal care if having a gun is against the law? After robbing, raping, and murdering are against the law and yet our jails are full of people who have committed those crimes.
A town in Georgia did a unique experiment - the required the ownership of guns - and their crime rate went down - how do you explain that?
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm
So you are somehow arguing that having the goverment involved in this is somehow going to make it better? You are damn right everything costs a fortune - look how much money your medical bills amounted to. Lets say that every citizen at some point in time is going to have the types of medical problems that you had - who is going to pay for all of that? How many years of taxes that you have paid would it take to cover the cost of all the medical procedures that you had? 4 - 5 - 6 years? At some point we are going to have to admit that we just cant afford this - the goverment cannot just keep printing money to cover the bills, the whole charade is going to fall apart at some point if everybody keeps thinking that goverment can just keep paying for all of this as if the money grows on trees. As far as your young whippersnapper comment I am 42 - if that is young whippersnapper then so be it. You are essentially arguing for the right to make me tax slave to keep paying for everybody's medical bills. Screw me if I would like to maybe save for own retirement, have something to pay my medical bills, be able to pay for my own children and their education, etc. Your medical bills do not give you the right to require the goverment to pay them - which in essence takes my money at the point of a gun or the threat of jail to pay it's bills. I am truly sorry if this sounds harsh but I fed up with constantly being told that the goverment needs this and the goverment needs that to pay for this and that and every other little thing - every dollar that I send out in taxes is one more dollar that is robbed from me that I could have used to support myself and mine.
I understand reality perfectly - and I know that when I spend my own money I can make the best decision as to how to spend it. When that money is spent by the goverment it is not in my experience ever spent wisely - as I pointed out numerous time before - nobody cares about you more than you and yours, arguing that the goverment in general is the best way to get good services is the real avoidance of reality and history has shown this to be true again and again.
