• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where Should We Cut Spending

Where Should We Cut Spending?

  • Total voters
    51
Jerry said:
Not with immature quips like that, no, now we're going to discuss why you couldn't refrain from flaming a couple people who were discussing a relevant tangent ;)
Click to expand...

relevance should be in the eye of the original poster...
 
Jerry said:
...the bodies of their children and family, and the bodies of their employers, and the bodies of those who's they commit crime against to pay for their next fix....

:prof Drop the lies and we can have a good conversation.
Click to expand...

I don't generally drop my flies for men, no matter how insistent.

Jerry said:
...sex-slave trafficking...
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying "repeal the Thirteenth Amendment". Perhaps you could search my posts and see if I ever recommended that before you start flinging non sequitur's around like a chimpanzee with spare dung, okay?

Jerry said:
Ruined live from Meth abuse, next....
Click to expand...

Not my life, not my problem.

Not your life, you're problem if you wish it to be, but you're not allowed to abuse the power of government to make you happy, so you're on your own.

How about "man shot dead in Compton by El Monte police serving no-knock warrant to wrong address"?
 
Guys, seriously, can you make your own thread to argue stuff that is not about cutting spending?
 
Redress said:
Guys, seriously, can you make your own thread to argue stuff that is not about cutting spending?
Click to expand...

Drugs should be legalized to eliminate the interdiction expenses incurred by the US Coast Guard and the eradication expenses incurred by US military and other forces overseas and the prohibition expenses incurred by the DEA and the local yokel cops and the incarceration expenses of non-violent drug related offenders in US prisons and jails.

Drug abusers can pay for their own damn rehab, and save the taxpayers money there, too.

See the relevance now?
 
I'd cut almost every program outside of those specifically authorized by the Constitution, and I'd ramp up military spending.

Believe it or not, the federal Government was meant to be an agent of the states, and a minor entitiy in the lives of the average citizen.

How far we've fallen.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Drugs should be legalized to eliminate the interdiction expenses incurred by the US Coast Guard and the eradication expenses incurred by US military and other forces overseas and the prohibition expenses incurred by the DEA and the local yokel cops and the incarceration expenses of non-violent drug related offenders in US prisons and jails.

Drug abusers can pay for their own damn rehab, and save the taxpayers money there, too.

See the relevance now?
Click to expand...

Mad props for this post. It kills me, and I lean to the liberal side, that our government spends so much money playing nanny and watching over people. If people own their own lives, then they should be free to waste it as long as no one else has to support them. That would save lots of money.
 
stekim said:
Yeah, let's go back to the Bush years. Good times and small government.
Click to expand...

There goes that Obama supporter reflex again.
 
I got asked for my views on this, so here we go.

I voted for each category. I think with how far we are in debt, and the size of the deficit, we have to look everywhere to cut spending. We are past the point of being able to do it the easy way, so now it is going to be hard, but it is needful.

cutting the military is probably the hardest, but to justify and to accomplish, but it can be done. My favorite example which I have used before is president Bush the elder and the base closure panel that found 10(IIRC) bases that could be closed without compromising the ability to do the missions. The military has to find ways to trim fat to make the whole more healthy. Tell the Pentagon that it has to cut 5 %(or some other amount) from it's budget, they will say it cannot be done. Remind them that it was not a request, and they will find ways. We have very bright people in the military.

Infrastructure is hard as well, but for different reasons. Right now it does help provide needed jobs. Hopefully by the time cuts would take effect, unemployment in the country will be down(side not, Michigan topped 14 % unemployment with the numbers released today). Some spending is needed, but it needs to be stepped way back for awhile.

Social Security will raise howls of protest from older people, but those same people allowed the deficit and debt get to where it is today, so they have no one but themselves to blame.

Medicare/Medicaid is the one I am most torn on. Screwing with insurance for those who need it most is not nice, but there has to be ways to make these programs more efficient, without eliminating/reducing service.

Speaking of being torn, spending money on education is one of the best investments a government can make. However, right now we cannot afford to invest much, and so some cuts are going to be needed. New computers or whatever is going to have to wait a couple years.

I have no problem with the government funding arts when we can afford it. That time is not now. Sorry arts, in my government, you get no money when we have a deficit. PBS stays, but it needs to improve on fund raising from the public.

Cutting welfare and unemployment at the current time is just wrong, but as soon as feasible, has to happen.

We need to find ways to streamline the bureaucracy(thank god for spellchecker), and make government offices more efficient. We have to cut across the board, and cut hard, and keep cutting until the deficit is gone, and the debt is gone.

This is not going to happen in my lifetime, but it is what I think should happen. We have to stop putting problems off for the next generation. it's what every president in my lifetime about has done, and it's not working.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Says who?
Click to expand...

Says Switzerland, the UN, the US People, the CDC, and oh yeah, the True Debate I won on prostitution :2wave:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So post-menopausal women can't get married in your world view?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't stand in the way of such a ban, no.

Marriage was always about raising children, childless couples were seen as benign exceptions, but if we need to ban those benign exceptions to protect the rule then so be it.
 
Jerry said:
Says Switzerland, the UN, the US People, the CDC, and oh yeah, the True Debate I won on prostitution :2wave:



I wouldn't stand in the way of such a ban, no.

Marriage was always about raising children, childless couples were seen as benign exceptions, but if we need to ban those benign exceptions to protect the rule then so be it.
Click to expand...

Once again, this is not about your weird ideas about marriage, please try and stay on topic.
 
Redress said:
Once again, this is not about your weird ideas about marriage, please try and stay on topic.
Click to expand...
Divorce harms the economy, so if you don't see how someone's post is relevant to the OP, ask questions.

Here's an example:

Long-term Effects of Divorce
Effect on Children: Research indicates that children suffer the most at the hands of divorce. There are immediate effects of divorce. They are usually resolved by professional therapy. Generally, most children bottle up their emotions. This emotional cementing directs their approach to life. It shapes and moulds children into fearful and emotionally unstable adults. Thus, professional counselling rarely investigates the root cause of behavioural problems. It does not erode them completely from a child's psyche. These emotions cement and become stronger with time. Social psychologists predict a futuristic society of lazy, emotionally insecure and unstable, anti social adults. Thus, long-term effects usually stem from short term adverse effects of:

* Bullying and mutilatory behaviour
* Aloofness and withdrawal
* Juvenile delinquency
* Teen pregnancies and school/college dropouts
* Lack of trust and respect
* Fear of abandonment

These behavioural problems are usually treated short term by professional counsellors. But the root of these behavioural syndromes never dies. It gives rise to maladjusted children. This in turn ensures the development of maladjusted adults. Some of the long-term effects are:

* Emotional instability and insecurity
* Inability to maintain long-lasting committed relationships
* Tendency to develop abusive behaviour syndromes
* Prone to socially inadequate behaviour of keeping bad company, resorting to crime
* Tendency to spend time in prison on serious criminal offenses of murder and rape
* Lack of respect for other people
* Lack of familial virtues of altruism, patience, trust, appreciation, sacrifice, and tolerance
Click to expand...

Examining the Costs and Benefits of Effective Juvenile Delinquency Programs for Youth with BD
Costs of Delinquency

  • [*]Important to examine costs as a consequence of non-prevention of BD
    [*]2.4 million juvenile arrests in 2000 (Snyder, 2002)
    [*]Juveniles accounted for 9% (murders) to 33% (burglaries) of all arrests for various types of crime in 2000

Types of Costs

  • [*]Juvenile justice/corrections
    [*]Lost property and wages
    [*]Medical and psychological expenses
    [*]Decreased productivity
    [*]Pain and suffering
    [*]Decreased quality of life/societal well-being (e.g., fear of crime, changing lifestyle due to risk of victimization)
    [*]Since expenditures allocated to delinquency-related costs, fewer resources are available for education/other government services

Opportunity Costs
Who incurs these costs?
  • Victims
  • Government agencies
  • Taxpayers
  • Society
  • Delinquent youth
  • Families
Click to expand...

So yeah, unless I have any reason to believe that gay-marriage will be any better than the hetero marriages I already oppose (the one's with children which end in the 50% divorce rate), I'm not going to support gay-marriage because MY ****ing tax dollars are going to be spent cleaning up the mess.

Support only statistically viable marriages and marriages involving children. That's one way we can cut spending.

So, seriously, pretty please, stop it with the whole "please stay on topic" bull****.
 
Jerry said:
Divorce harms the economy, so if you don't see how someone's post is relevant to the OP, ask questions.

Here's an example:

Long-term Effects of Divorce


Examining the Costs and Benefits of Effective Juvenile Delinquency Programs for Youth with BD


So yeah, unless I have any reason to believe that gay-marriage will be any better than the hetero marriages I already oppose (the one's with children which end in the 50% divorce rate), I'm not going to support gay-marriage because MY ****ing tax dollars are going to be spent cleaning up the mess.

Support only statistically viable marriages and marriages involving children. That's one way we can cut spending.

So, seriously, pretty please, stop it with the whole "please stay on topic" bull****.
Click to expand...

I will stop with it when you stop using every chance to push your stupid and weird crap in threads that have nothing to do with it. We disproved your whole marriage for children rant last night anyway, you had to go hide.
 
Redress said:
I will stop with it when you stop using every chance to push your stupid and weird crap in threads that have nothing to do with it. We disproved your whole marriage for children rant last night anyway, you had to go hide.
Click to expand...

You mean "you had to go to work" :rofl

Economics is part of sociology, so when you discuss economics it's perfectly reasonable to include other parts of sociology, especially when you can succinctly link them together as I just did :cool:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You mean "you had to go to work" :rofl

Economics is part of sociology, so when you discuss economics it's perfectly reasonable to include other parts of sociology, especially when you can succinctly link them together as I just did :cool:
Click to expand...

I am not discussing economy, I am discussing the current budget.
 
Jerry said:
Says Switzerland, the UN, the US People, the CDC, and oh yeah, the True Debate I won on prostitution :2wave:
Click to expand...

Are they discussing their own personal private bodies, or the bodies of people they're not supposed to own?

Jerry said:
Marriage was always about raising children,
Click to expand...

No. Marriage was always about identifying the official recognition of a pair bond and the transferrence of property from the bride's family to the groom's, ie, the wife and the dowry.
 
Jerry said:
Yes.


10 characters.
Click to expand...


Im going to agree with Jerry that marriage was always about raising children.

Im going to disagree that it is the same way today, for obvious reasons.
 
Caine said:
Im going to agree with Jerry that marriage was always about raising children.

Im going to disagree that it is the same way today, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

It makes sense then, that as a Conservative, I would want to preserve what marriage always was before, while it also makes sense that progressives want marriage to now become something else.
 
Jerry said:
It makes sense then, that as a Conservative, I would want to preserve what marriage always was before, while it also makes sense that progressives want marriage to now become something else.
Click to expand...

Where do I stand then?

Oh yeah, in the, "I don't really give a rats ass less" category. For debating purposes only though, I usually side with the gay marriage crowd just because of reasons I have stated before, those being...

1. Its unequal for the government to PREVENT access to a group of people's who have a different view of sexual orientation.

2. Nobody holds a monopoly on what marriage is, some religions allow, under the word marriage, a joining of two homosexual persons, therefore its unfair to base the "definition" of the word marriage off of a specific religious group's opinion, regardless if that particular group is the "Majority" in our society.

And with that being said, if I were state dictator for a day, I would allow gay marriages given that,

A. They were required to be accepted by other states, even if those other did not allow the gay marriages to partake in their states or not.

B. They had all the equal benefits and restrictions of a normal hetero marriage

C. No religious institution is required by law to perform a gay marriage if it is against their religious covenant, and they have the right to refuse service to anyone.

D. The magistrate, however, does not have the right to refuse service to anyone, and must perform the el cheapo marriage for those who seek it.




EDIT: But since im not the dictator.... and Im not gay..... I could really give a rats ass less.. You won't see me out there with a picket sign in hand demanding gays have equal rights and all that BS. Nor will you see me sayin' "Gay marriage is gonna ruin my marriage!!!"
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
If it's not directly related to spending, take it to another thread. There are plenty of places to discuss the purpose of marriage or the definitions of conservative v libertarian.
 
RightinNYC said:
Moderator's Warning:
If it's not directly related to spending, take it to another thread. There are plenty of places to discuss the purpose of marriage or the definitions of conservative v libertarian.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, so I'll say again, this is where should we cut spending:

Jerry said:
Everything Obama has don...rescind it.

Every ****ing bail out, every health care program, everything. Repeal the whole damn administration.
Click to expand...

We can start by cutting this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/healt...-national-health-insurance-act-h-r-676-a.html
 
Last edited:
Most if not all depeartment heads know little or nothing about economics.
Education is where we should start, and I mean increasing the budget, as necessary..
Spend money in the right places, cut in the places where its can be done..
So far, our President has set a bad example....And this is where the cuts should begin..Do away with Air Force One and Two.. An executive jet should suffice.
But, will my ideas be listened to ?
Never have yet, the money wasters do not want any change....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom