• 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
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,952
Reaction score
60,480
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is related to my last poll, http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/50499-appropriate-roles-government.html. Of the listed areas of government spending, where should we cut spending? Should there be any untouchable areas, places we simply should not cut spending, or is everything fair game?

Again, please be patient as I get the poll options filled in, I am still a slow typist.
 
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.
 
Where should we cut spending? How about nearly everywhere? Just for starters.
 
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%.
 
tlmorg02 said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with that: It's like 1% or less of the budget. So while I'm not opposed to cutting it in the end it won't matter all that much. There is no bang for the buck there.
 
stekim said:
Here's the problem with that: It's like 1% or less of the budget. So while I'm not opposed to cutting it in the end it won't matter all that much. There is no bang for the buck there.
Click to expand...

I know, I am just picking on my peeves. As far as I can tell the military budget, including Iraq and Afghanistan are the major drains on the budget at the moment, though all entitlements together are it's equal. So let's cut the military budget and some entitlements and we are set, though it is never as easy is that.
 
I think the biggest cuts to first hit would be to government bureaucracy and departments. We can start looking at the stuff which positively impacts the People later and discuss whether or not it's proper. But ending all subsidies, cutting out unnecessary departments and bureaucracy would be first on my list.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I know, I am just picking on my peeves. As far as I can tell the military budget, including Iraq and Afghanistan are the major drains on the budget at the moment, though all entitlements together are it's equal. So let's cut the military budget and some entitlements and we are set, though it is never as easy is that.
Click to expand...


Most people have a problem with folks sucking at the governmental teet, so that's understandable. But the military has waste literally everywhere. And entitlements need to be better funded or cut.
 
Put a sunset clause on Social Security.

Put a sunset clause on welfare and unemployment programs.

Put a sunset clause on medicare/medicaid.

Reduce our military presence abroad.
 
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.
 
I think the federal government should delegate alot of responsibilities back to the states. No more offering the states the carrot stick of funding from the federal government, for what are mostly state-run programs. If a state cannot afford something, why should the rest of the country fund that?
 
Redress said:
This is related to my last poll, http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/50499-appropriate-roles-government.html. Of the listed areas of government spending, where should we cut spending? Should there be any untouchable areas, places we simply should not cut spending, or is everything fair game?

Again, please be patient as I get the poll options filled in, I am still a slow typist.
Click to expand...

Everything Obama has don...rescind it.

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

Yeah, let's go back to the Bush years. Good times and small government.
 
stekim said:
Yeah, let's go back to the Bush years. Good times and small government.
Click to expand...

You know what...no one's talking about Bush...you don't even know if your talking to someone who supported Bush's policies :roll:
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
I think the federal government should delegate alot of responsibilities back to the states. No more offering the states the carrot stick of funding from the federal government, for what are mostly state-run programs. If a state cannot afford something, why should the rest of the country fund that?
Click to expand...

Some states already have more liberal rules regarding welfare and other social services.
Wasn't California the preferred spot to be if you wanted to live on welfare?
Maybe that is a major part of why that state is in such dire straits now...
 
Jerry said:
You know what...no one's talking about Bush...you don't even know if your talking to someone who supported Bush's policies :roll:
Click to expand...

Call it a wild guess.
 
Jerry said:
Call it a miss.
Click to expand...

If you say so. You would certainly know. I'm certainly not going to go back and look your old posts. :rwbelepha
 
Jerry said:
DebatePolitics.com didn't even exist in 2003 :doh
Click to expand...

How about 2005, 2006 or 2007? When Bush was actually in office? Because I know my history of pointing out GOP hypocrisy dates back to when most people did not even have the Internet. Did it really take you until May 2009?
 
stekim said:
How about 2005, 2006 or 2007? When Bush was actually in office? Because I know my history of pointing out GOP hypocrisy dates back to when most people did not even have the Internet. Did it really take you until May 2009?
Click to expand...

To ask for an official change in a user group, yes, but I'm not the first one who's asked for that, either. I'm probably just the first one who asked through a thread instead of a PM to the Admin.

To observe that Conservatives had left the GOP? No, that line was crossed when Bush wanted to create the Department of Homeland Security.

So, when a Conservative gives a Conservative view, it's safer to assume they're Libertarian than Republican, but safer still is not to assume they speak for a party at all.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
So, when a Conservative gives a Conservative view, it's safer to assume they're Libertarian than Republican, but safer still is not to assume they speak for a party at all.
Click to expand...

That may be true of you, but I'm no novice on political boards. Most people still drink the Kool Aid. But yes, many conservatives have gotten frustrated. But most, including Rush, haven't left the party. Hell, Rush IS the party.

Libertarians care far more about liberty than Conservatives do. The two may agree on a great many fiscal issues, but Libertarians lack that special "we know better than you what's good for you" streak conservatives tend to have.
 
Kids, this is about cutting spending please. Could we please try and stay kinda on that topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom