• 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
In all seriousness, there really isn't too much in the federal budget that most people would want to cut or should be cut in my opinion.

I really think we should get rid of all pure welfare and leave that to the states, as well as reform or even remove medicare/medicaid.

Sure, there should be cuts in art/public broadcasting because alot of that is substidies... but I like channel 13 and other government broadcasting :p It really is the most "ballanced" media around. Very strange, but great.

But if you look at the pie chart of spending, there isn't too much immediet work that can be done. Healthcare work will take a while, and no one is exactly sure what can be cut or changed.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, there really isn't too much in the federal budget that most people would want to cut or should be cut in my opinion.

In reality, the federal budget should be cut by 80%, just to get inside the Constitution again.

If the free market can support the bull**** programming on PBS, then let it do so. If that programming can't survive without tax dollars, let it follow Howdy-Doody into oblivion.

If an artist can't sell his schlock crap to a private buyer, there's no reason for the federal government to be buying it. End the art subsidies.
 
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....

Hells yeah, education...if a failing student (my brother) can pass the GED in the 95%, there's seriously something wrong with high school.

Think about it, you only need an 8th grade education to pass the GED, and the GED is "high school equivalent", therefore 8th grade = 12 grade, and you don't really learn anything necessary for life in high school.
 
In reality, the federal budget should be cut by 80%, just to get inside the Constitution again.

If the free market can support the bull**** programming on PBS, then let it do so. If that programming can't survive without tax dollars, let it follow Howdy-Doody into oblivion.

If an artist can't sell his schlock crap to a private buyer, there's no reason for the federal government to be buying it. End the art subsidies.

Well of course you have a point in that there shouldn't be substidies, especially for art. But that is a VERY small part of the budget.

Even if you won't agree so, most of the other dollars spent in the federal budget are spent towards programs that we should really have.

There is more leeway for the state's though. Large amounts of welfare and other wasteful programs make more sense to be gotten rid of if people want. The federal budget is pretty limited (in comparison to the whole country's GDP and compared to most other nations)
 
I say cut Arts/public broadcasting , welfare/unemployment , foreign aid, grants for useless studies and other similar things. I would say cut Medicare/Medicaid and social security but everybody pays for with in mind that one day they will use those things.
 
Much of the budget needs to be trimmed, but I think that Welfare and Unemployment need it the most. Mainly welfare. I know, let's drug test those on welfare and we can probably cut the rolls by 75%.

The other big item I would cut would be the regulatory agencies. Does anybody have any idea how much compliance costs these things impose?

And while I'm at it, let's do likewise to state and local regulatory agencies.
 
Yeah, let's go back to the Bush years. Good times and small government.

Give me a break. Bush wasn't as bad as Obama, but he sure as Hell wasn't for small government.
 
The other big item I would cut would be the regulatory agencies. Does anybody have any idea how much compliance costs these things impose?

And while I'm at it, let's do likewise to state and local regulatory agencies.

and while we are at it, let's declare open season on those who would use the lack of regulation as an excuse to sell unsafe products, pollute our water and air, and in general do anything they think they can get away with.

If they can operate responsibly, without regulations, we give them a tax break. If they cannot, and injure someone, we give them 10 to 15 years hard labor....
 
I'm not sure if my post would fall under arts/public broadcasting so I am putting it here.

I think that entertainment could calm down a bit. How many movies do we need to spend a lot of money on just to satisfy people? Can't we find something else to spend time on? Entertainment also includes video games, I enjoy them, but we don't need a new Call of Duty every year.
 
I'm not sure if my post would fall under arts/public broadcasting so I am putting it here.

I think that entertainment could calm down a bit. How many movies do we need to spend a lot of money on just to satisfy people? Can't we find something else to spend time on? Entertainment also includes video games, I enjoy them, but we don't need a new Call of Duty every year.

We're talking about where the government should cut spending. I agree with you on this, but it's private industry and they can spend on what they want.
 
You left off reducing the number of government employees. That one never makes the list.
 
You left off reducing the number of government employees. That one never makes the list.

Automatically comes with complete termination of unconstitutional programs.

A few years back, during the last California budget crisis, or maybe the one before that, some parasite making her iving by handing out taxpayer dollars to other parasites, I believe they're called socailist workers, said that her fat useless ass would continue to draw taxpayer dollars if she was laid off, on unemployment.
 
Automatically comes with complete termination of unconstitutional programs.

Why do you keep on making that claim, despite all logic and facts to the contrary?

A few years back, during the last California budget crisis, or maybe the one before that, some parasite making her iving by handing out taxpayer dollars to other parasites, I believe they're called socailist workers, said that her fat useless ass would continue to draw taxpayer dollars if she was laid off, on unemployment.

Great story, and highly relevant.
 
With to respect the Military part of the budget I'm not sure how much can be saved esp. since do to the policies of the two Bushes and Clinton we are much weaker in terms of manufacturing capacity and to dependent on potently foreign source for much of the products and material we need. Given that now we may have to keep the military at current levels no savings there and we need to keep a technowlegeabe edge at best we can eliminate some of the contractors and possible modernize some areas that are causing high maintenance costs.


I voted yes for all the rest.

Infrastructure(highways and bridges) can be relegated to the States and can be funded thru bonds and revenue as a fee per use to pay the bonds. The same would go to founding new canals or maintaining existing ones. Structures such as dikes would be supported at state level if they can afford it fine if not then maybe what areas that are being protected is not tenable.

Social security a bad idea which time has come to end. We can start removing those programs that were attached to Social Security such as SSI for disability and means test the age insurance part of it. Stop coverage at some point and stop collecting it as a special tax. Let those who still qualify be paid out of general revenue.

Medicare/Medicaid the sooner this is eliminated the better remember for Medicare everyone is required to go into it and pay a monthly fee services that are paid service are restricted and often coverage within term are not paid leaving the service provider with the bag. The Medicaid was a me too for non-Senior citizens that qualified for social security under those attachments previous. In both there are non-citizens using both illegally. So no loss there.

Education If we are going to have some government subsidy as a policy wouldn't it be a good idea to choose what category would best serve the country? If not why do so? The ending of subsidizing education for all sorts educational fields such as the "Humanities" i.e. racial/gender/sexual/errata studies, political doctrines, and the "Fine Arts" which include all sorts odd degrees in basket weaving and equivalent such degrees. Eliminating the regulation by the Fed govemt would be a further reduction in cost. Let the states make their own mistakes let real federalism work.

Arts/public broadcasting If we need a public work for a particular we can commission a work. We can maintain some minimal standard for museums but would be better to have a self supporting foundation with private support to maintain and expand museums. As to public broadcasting just eliminate it.

welfare/unemplyment both should be State issues not Federal ones, eliminate.

other, please list Stop all government subsidies, eliminate Amtrak and all other government ruined businesses. that is all that i can think of now.
 
I want to know how much congress spends on itself.
 
Why do you keep on making that claim, despite all logic and facts to the contrary?

Let's work on this, shall we?

What does "termination" mean? Why, it means make an end to. The word "complete" is redundant.

What was the quote in reference to?

The reduction of the number of government employees.

When a project is ended, the employees working on that project are either shifted to other projects or let go. When GM stops making Oldsmobiles, it can't shift all the men working on the Oldsmobile line to the Pontiac line. If the government ends welfare, it's not going to have enough work to move all those welfare employees to the education staff, especially since education is yet another federal item the Constitution does not allow.

So, it logically follows that the termination of a federal program leads to the dismissal of federal employees.

Let's get to the "unconstitutional" part.

If it's not specifically allowed by Article 1, Section 8, it's reserved to the states. The vast majority of government programs simply are not in the Constituiton, anywhere. That means they're not Constitutional.

You can't argue this, you can only lie about it.
 
Let's work on this, shall we?

What does "termination" mean? Why, it means make an end to. The word "complete" is redundant.

What was the quote in reference to?

The reduction of the number of government employees.

When a project is ended, the employees working on that project are either shifted to other projects or let go. When GM stops making Oldsmobiles, it can't shift all the men working on the Oldsmobile line to the Pontiac line. If the government ends welfare, it's not going to have enough work to move all those welfare employees to the education staff, especially since education is yet another federal item the Constitution does not allow.

So, it logically follows that the termination of a federal program leads to the dismissal of federal employees.

Let's get to the "unconstitutional" part.

If it's not specifically allowed by Article 1, Section 8, it's reserved to the states. The vast majority of government programs simply are not in the Constituiton, anywhere. That means they're not Constitutional.

You can't argue this, you can only lie about it.

So if something isn't mentioned in the constitution, it should be illegal for govt to be involved in it?
 
So if something isn't mentioned in the constitution, it should be illegal for govt to be involved in it?

You're starting to get the idea.

Now you're going to come up with some silliness about some technological advance and say "well, what about that one, HMMMMM?", aren't you?
 
You're starting to get the idea.

Now you're going to come up with some silliness about some technological advance and say "well, what about that one, HMMMMM?", aren't you?

yep, I was going to say get off the internet...:2razz:
 
Regulatory agencies would be at the top of my hit list.

These are the most dangerous -- the "swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
 
Regulatory agencies would be at the top of my hit list.

These are the most dangerous -- the "swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

wHAT ABOUT THE epa mofo!
 
categoryPie07.gif


I want to support Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, but they're just too costly. If we don't get rid of them we should at least reform them.

What category is that money going to ACORN? What category is the TARP money that went to the financiers stealing our money? What category is that 747 flight over NY? I didn't notice a category for pork but I guess they just attach it to whatever they want to inflate.
 
What category is that money going to ACORN? What category is the TARP money that went to the financiers stealing our money? What category is that 747 flight over NY? I didn't notice a category for pork but I guess they just attach it to whatever they want to inflate.

add medicare and SS and you get 35%.....
certainly some cuts can be made there. and I say that as a recipeint of SS.
but look at military....if we didn't go out and get involved in multiple wars on the other side of the world, we might be able to cut that by a third. Instead of being the world wide lead in the war on terror, we should first make the suppliers of terrorists either keep their crazies home, or face delivery of cruise missles to their larger military targets. No war, no occupation, just deliver a message that they can't ignore.
 
Government exists to facilitate commerce and communication, and to protect private property.

Anything that furthers those ends should be well funded.

Anything that does not should be eliminated.

You need to live in a country founded on different principles than the one that started its Consititution with the following:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution . . ."

The preamble is a statement of the functions of government, and it defines them as being much broader than your notion. It is also ridiculous to state that the function of government is to protect private property when in at least one instance, it's activity is to abrogate property rights for the public good (imminent domain), which at times helps to fulfil one of its actual functions, namely: promote the general welfare.
 
Back
Top Bottom