• 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!

What would you be willing to give up to reduce the size of government?

What goverment service that benefits you would you give up?


  • Total voters
    53
You left off the largest chunk of unconstitutional spending: social programs.

I know, I honestly didn't think about them when writing the poll.
 
What else would I be willing to give up for the sake of government reduction?

I'll surrender my Congressman's salary and pension.

I'll surrender my neighbor's welfare checks.

I'll surrender my other neighbor's disability check.

I can surrender all sorts of stuff like that.
 
Military No and yes. A strong military makes others think twice about taking us on. And really a lot of military tech is interesting and it helps out socially as well.
[bInfrastructure, such as federal highways[/b] We need a system like this to support our economy.
Scientific Research or Agencies such as NOAA We need this because the government is suppose to research when private corporations do not have the money necessary.
Education I think it is needed but over 800 billion dollars a year? Come on that is ridiculous and really kids are not learning because not enough are trying hard and teachers know this so they don't really care to teach. I support putting kids into a huge high school that will prepare them for university. Huge classrooms equals less money being spent on each student. There is no reason for a public high school to be spending over a 100 million dollars a year.
[bHomeland Security / Law Enforcement (FBI) [/b] We need for organizations to stop criminals or at best to try and find them when crime happens.
Court System Our courts are busy because there are too many laws that tell an individual what he or she can not do. I wouldn't be bothered by someone using the services of a prostitute or using drugs or "speeding" so long as they do not hurt anyone that is what matters the most.
Federal Reserve[/b needed. When Andrew Jackson removed the central bank. What happened? The US entered a severe depression that lasted for 20 yrs.
Regulatory Agencies such as the FDA or NIST Needed, but they shouldn't be so anal. Just enough to make sure that no individual is harmed.
[bCultural Grants
What would we be without our history?
Earmarks for your state or county
This is a big negative for me. There is no reason for one area that is hardly populated to get more money then an area with more people. I know it sounds bad because most of the states and counties depend on earmarks to pay the salary of their employees and to just survive but still it isn't necessary. Because those are the same people who are screaming for a small government with limited spending. And I agree with them they wouldn't though once they see how much they have to make due because we are not supporting them anymore.
And I disagree with section 8. Too many people take advantage of the system and when you tell the Housing Authority they do not care. Why? Because if it weren't for sect 8 they wouldn't have a job. If you cared so much for these people then help them find jobs don't give them money for nothing unless they are mentally retarded or physically retarded so they couldn't work.
 
It is not the job of the US, nor the burden of the US taxpayer, to provide security for the rest of the world on a 24/7 basis.

There is no guarantee that "global savagery" (whatever that is) would follow.

Where is your proof that if the US military abandons overseas bases the world will simply fall apart?

I refer you to a perusal of the term "Dark Ages" to edify youself as to the likely result of the sudden diappearence of the world's domoinant military entity. (i.e. the Roman Empire)

As to whether it is our "job" or not, this is utterly irrelevant. The need is compelling and we are the only force available to maintain even a thin veneer of global civilization.

But other than that, your position is at least uninformed.
 
Last edited:
So where in the constitution does it give our government the power to police the world? Oh.. that's right I almost forgot, it doesn't!

I'm also assuming you wouldn't mind China coming to one of the 50 states and setting up a base... right?

Globalist :roll:
If China were powerful enough, then according to their own system they would have the right and the duty.

If you'll give this concept a little clear thought a concept might dimly begin to manifest for you -- that someone is going to exert this kind of global force and that it might just be in your best interest, and the best interests of just about everyone else, if it were us and not them.

I know that thinking about real world concerns is difficult, that is why I recommend that people who find it too onerous, such as Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and Gaisits leave this difficult task and the decisions which are attendant on it to more informed and mature souls.

By the way, I think of myself as more of an Imperialist than a Globalist.
 
Last edited:
I refer you to a perusal of the term "Dark Ages" to edify youself as to the likely result of the sudden diappearence of the world's domoinant military entity. (i.e. the Roman Empire)

As to whether it is our "job" or not, this is utterly irrelevant. The need is compelling and we are the only force available to maintain even a thin veneer of global civilization.

But other than that, your position is at least uninformed.

The need to police the world is not compelling. The need is only in your mind. This speaks volumes about your insecurities and distrust of others. It says almost nothing about the rest of the world.

The world will get along just find without the constant meddling of the USA. Only someone with a tremendous amount of insecurity, fear and distrust would believe otherwise.
 
Along with the poll options I chose, I'd add:
Federal entilement programs. All of them.

Until entitlement spending is addressed, there can be no meaningful debt reduction.
 
I want honest answers here. What government service that gives you some sort of benefit or makes your life better would you give up in order to cut taxes or reduce the budget deficit?

Honestly, I can't think of any other than maybe a smaller military and department of homeland security.

Most people want to make government smaller, but only for those other guys.

STOP TOLERATING/FUNDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Close the NEA.
Close NPR.
Close the EPA.
Close the IRS.
Eliminate funding for groups like ACORN.
Eliminate the Dept. of Agriculture. (let the states take control)
Eliminate the Dept. of Education. (let the states take control)
Eliminate HUD; Housing and Urban Development
Eliminate OSHA
Phase out Social Security.
Phase out Medicare and Medicaid.

For a start...

Spend more on the military, intel services and homeland security.

.
 
Last edited:
I refer you to a perusal of the term "Dark Ages" to edify youself as to the likely result of the sudden diappearence of the world's domoinant military entity. (i.e. the Roman Empire)

As to whether it is our "job" or not, this is utterly irrelevant. The need is compelling and we are the only force available to maintain even a thin veneer of global civilization.

But other than that, your position is at least uninformed.

So, preserving global civilization is the American Burden, much like what used to be called the "white man's burden" to preserve civilization.
 
So, preserving global civilization is the American Burden,

I don't agree with Oftencold very much, but he's right in this case. Think about what the world would look like without the US military. Not a pretty picture.

Dittohead not! said:
much like what used to be called the "white man's burden" to preserve civilization.

That phrase gets thrown around a lot, but many of those Asian/African colonies did at least as well under European rule as they're doing under self-rule.
 
I don't agree with Oftencold very much, but he's right in this case. Think about what the world would look like without the US military. Not a pretty picture.


So paint the picture. What would it look like?
 
That phrase gets thrown around a lot, but many of those Asian/African colonies did at least as well under European rule as they're doing under self-rule.


Do you believe the US is better off with self-rule or outside rule?

Do you believe the US is better off when the power is vested in the people or with a government located in a foreign land?

If you believe the US is better off when we are self-governed, why would you NOT believe the same of other nations? Are they too stupid to rule themselves, too backwards, too aggressive, too weak... what?
 
So paint the picture. What would it look like?

Europe would have been devastated by World War III. Communism might still be around, and it certainly would have expanded its reach when it WAS around. European countries (if they retained their independence) would likely try to fill the power vacuum with militaries of their own, which might have turned on each other given the history of the continent. There would be no serious military relief for tragedies like Haiti. There would be no country with the credibility to broker peace in apartheid South Africa, or prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly have proliferated much more widely than they actually have. And dictatorships around the world would be emboldened, as there would be no powerful country advocating for human rights.

The US military certainly blunders from time to time (see: Second Iraq War) but IMO it is essential to preserving "global civilization" as Oftencold said.
 
Europe would have been devastated by World War III. Communism might still be around, and it certainly would have expanded its reach when it WAS around. European countries (if they retained their independence) would likely try to fill the power vacuum with militaries of their own, which might have turned on each other given the history of the continent. There would be no serious military relief for tragedies like Haiti. There would be no country with the credibility to broker peace in apartheid South Africa, or prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly have proliferated much more widely than they actually have. And dictatorships around the world would be emboldened, as there would be no powerful country advocating for human rights.

The US military certainly blunders from time to time (see: Second Iraq War) but IMO it is essential to preserving "global civilization" as Oftencold said.


Not a pretty picture, to be sure. So, when the baton of "world's only superpower" gets passed on to China, as it looks like it will in the next century or so, how would you feel about them having bases here?
 
Do you believe the US is better off with self-rule or outside rule?

Self-rule.

Winnb said:
Do you believe the US is better off when the power is vested in the people or with a government located in a foreign land?

The people.

Winnb said:
If you believe the US is better off when we are self-governed, why would you NOT believe the same of other nations?

Because not all other nations are governed as well as the United States. I'm not saying we need to go invade every country in the world that isn't governing itself properly, but I wish that people wouldn't just drop the phrase "White man's burden" as though it ends any argument, since a lot of those countries did fairly well under colonialism.

Winnb said:
Are they too stupid to rule themselves, too backwards, too aggressive, too weak... what?

Depends on the country. It could be any of those things, or a combination.
 
Europe would have been devastated by World War III. Communism might still be around, and it certainly would have expanded its reach when it WAS around. European countries (if they retained their independence) would likely try to fill the power vacuum with militaries of their own, which might have turned on each other given the history of the continent. There would be no serious military relief for tragedies like Haiti. There would be no country with the credibility to broker peace in apartheid South Africa, or prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly have proliferated much more widely than they actually have. And dictatorships around the world would be emboldened, as there would be no powerful country advocating for human rights.

The US military certainly blunders from time to time (see: Second Iraq War) but IMO it is essential to preserving "global civilization" as Oftencold said.

My bad.

I'm not talking about fighting World Wars or disbanding the US Military. WWII had to be fought, no argument there, and the US industrial might was instrumental in winning that. We absolutely have to have a military.

I'm talking about the meddling. I'm talking about hundreds of military bases we have stationed around the world in peaceful nations. Nations with standing, funded armies perfectly capable of defending themselves. We pay for that. We pay Trillions for that.

Sorry about that. After reading my post again I see why you posted what you did.
 
Not a pretty picture, to be sure. So, when the baton of "world's only superpower" gets passed on to China, as it looks like it will in the next century or so,

Unlikely, unless China makes a lot of effective reforms to its system of government. Which, given that timescale, is certainly a possibility.

Dittohead not! said:
how would you feel about them having bases here?

You mean the Chinese regime today? Well I'd be opposed to that, of course. Or the Chinese regime 100 years from now? I have no idea.
 
Europe would have been devastated by World War III. Communism might still be around, and it certainly would have expanded its reach when it WAS around. European countries (if they retained their independence) would likely try to fill the power vacuum with militaries of their own, which might have turned on each other given the history of the continent. There would be no serious military relief for tragedies like Haiti. There would be no country with the credibility to broker peace in apartheid South Africa, or prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly have proliferated much more widely than they actually have. And dictatorships around the world would be emboldened, as there would be no powerful country advocating for human rights.

The US military certainly blunders from time to time (see: Second Iraq War) but IMO it is essential to preserving "global civilization" as Oftencold said.

You painted a pretty good scenario until you inserted "(see: Second Iraq War)".

But was worthy of a Thanks even with a slight blunder. :)

.
 
Last edited:
Because not all other nations are governed as well as the United States. I'm not saying we need to go invade every country in the world that isn't governing itself properly, but I wish that people wouldn't just drop the phrase "White man's burden" as though it ends any argument, since a lot of those countries did fairly well under colonialism.

I agree. Many countries did better under the rule of another nation. But in the end that's wrong. People should be free to make all the bad choices they want. People get the government they deserve. And when the US, whether through the CIA and covert ops (which we've done) or through our military meddles in the affairs of other nations it always ends up costing us blood and money.

My opinion is we should lead by example. Lead through education. Lead through commerce and free trade. Lead by showing the world our prosperity and successes. ALL because of our freedoms and our capitalist system.

There are lots of ways to lead the world without using a gun barrel to point the way.
 
Axe the federal DOE, since most educational responsibilities are handled at the state/county/local level. Axe cultural grants and earmarks. That still probably won't balance our budgets, however, because the current crop of retirees has voted themselves the most lucrative retirement package in the history of our nation. Yet another reason to despise the baby boomers.
 
Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png


That's a good chart. An overwhelming majority of our federal spending by year goes to social security, medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and interest on the national debt. We cannot sustain the cost of these benefits without signficant tax increases. THose things amount to 60% of our annual federal budget. Cutting the rest won't even make an impact. When the boomers retire, it's gonna get a whole lot worse.
 
Europe would have been devastated by World War III. Communism might still be around, and it certainly would have expanded its reach when it WAS around. European countries (if they retained their independence) would likely try to fill the power vacuum with militaries of their own, which might have turned on each other given the history of the continent. There would be no serious military relief for tragedies like Haiti. There would be no country with the credibility to broker peace in apartheid South Africa, or prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons would almost certainly have proliferated much more widely than they actually have. And dictatorships around the world would be emboldened, as there would be no powerful country advocating for human rights.

The US military certainly blunders from time to time (see: Second Iraq War) but IMO it is essential to preserving "global civilization" as Oftencold said.

WWII was essential because of Hitler? Right, and a war after that was essential too because Stalin wanted to spread communism all over Europe. It would have beem best to have declared war on the Soviet Union right after V day in Europe. That would have saved the world from so much more misery that communism brought. Oh well though.
How was the strength of the US military essential for preventing a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If anything since both developed nuclear weapons that made it less possible for either one to use a nuke.
Also, many dictatorships did happen around the world regardless of our military strength and many were in fact supported by the US. You may not like this or many other members as well. But the truth is that dictatorships are good for foreign policy. Think about it.
We can't preserve "global civilization" because what one may find civilize in one country in another they won't. So really this whole idea that we are preserving "global civilization" is a pretty big lie. And we are not really good for human rights either.
 
Last edited:
Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png


That's a good chart. An overwhelming majority of our federal spending by year goes to social security, medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and interest on the national debt. We cannot sustain the cost of these benefits without signficant tax increases. THose things amount to 60% of our annual federal budget. Cutting the rest won't even make an impact. When the boomers retire, it's gonna get a whole lot worse.

That's why I say we kill all the old people.
 
How was the strength of the US military essential for preventing a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If anything since both developed nuclear weapons that made it less possible for either one to use a nuke.

Neither of them seem to have the same aversion to the use of nuclear weapons that the US and USSR had during the Cold War. There has never been an outright war between two nuclear powers before...but they came very very close to war a few years ago, and it took the US to broker a truce between them.

stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
Also, many dictatorships did happen around the world regardless of our military strength and many were in fact supported by the US.

Absolutely, but the number of instances where US involvement has prevented a democratic movement are vastly smaller than the number of instances where US involvement has encouraged a democratic movement.

stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
You may not like this or many other members as well. But the truth is that dictatorships are good for foreign policy. Think about it.

I'm not saying dictatorships are inherently good OR inherently bad, but there would be a lot more states that were a lot more inclined to abuse human rights if the United States didn't wag its finger at them.

stalin_was_a_nice_being said:
We can't preserve "global civilization" because what one may find civilize in one country in another they won't. So really this whole idea that we are preserving "global civilization" is a pretty big lie. And we are not really good for human rights either.

The United States is excellent in terms of human rights: there is almost total freedom of speech/press, there aren't extrajudicial killings or disappearances of political opponents, the government goes out of its way to protect the civil liberties of criminal suspects, etc.
 
Here's an example, you can follow it in private if you wish.

Repeat after me:

Dictatorships are inherently bad.

See?

Was that difficult?
 
Back
Top Bottom