Hey Republicans - where are the spending cuts?

[billvon 3,132]

>What would happen if we cut all of the foreign aid we dole out each year by 25%?
>Would the world collapse?

Probably not. A lot of people would die, since it costs very little to feed people, and we do a lot of that. But they are, by and large, not very important people when it comes to keeping the world going.

We spend about $37 billion a year on economic aid to other countries. Cut that by 25% and we'd be down to $28 billion. To put it another way, our 2012 deficit would fall by almost 1%.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Not allowing people to build on sand, or, better yet, make the insurance companies pay the claims might reduce federal expendatures A TAD from wide spread destruction from Hurricanes. We're getting one major storm per year now and there are plans to rebuild boardwalks, if you can believe it.

Just reducing waste in gov't would save us a lot, Iraq and Afgan wars are sink holes and nothing will be gained there for all our effort/ expense. Cutting social problems would definitely help including: giving students: breakfast and lunch, free day care, free napsacks, school supplies, free college, free graduate studies, free money to reduce what the own on their house, free healthcare, an overpaid job where there is no work, or where they refuse to work. Too many on the dole. Result: nothing produced, just more expense.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Probably not. A lot of people would die, since it costs very little to feed people, and we do a lot of that. But they are, by and large, not very important people when it comes to keeping the world going.

Plus you give about $3 billion in aid to Israel on an annual basis (mostly in military aid now).

Though I have this feeling that many who advocate stopping all foreign aid and getting rid of all exceptions, would make an exception

[billvon 3,132]

>Not allowing people to build on sand, or, better yet, make the insurance companies
>pay the claims might reduce federal expendatures A TAD from wide spread destruction
>from Hurricanes.

Sure, that might work. During Katrina we spent $141 billion. (That was an expensive year but let's go with that.) So eliminating those expenditures by not allowing people to build houses where hurricanes can make landfall could save us $141 billion, or 10.6% of our current deficit. Of course you'd have to budget some money to evict the people living in New Orleans, Miami, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Virginia Beach etc.

"Making the insurance companies pay the claims" - we do that already through the courts, so not much savings there.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>Not allowing people to build on sand, or, better yet, make the insurance companies
>pay the claims might reduce federal expendatures A TAD from wide spread destruction
>from Hurricanes.

Sure, that might work. During Katrina we spent $141 billion. (That was an expensive year but let's go with that.) So eliminating those expenditures by not allowing people to build houses where hurricanes can make landfall could save us $141 billion, or 10.6% of our current deficit. Of course you'd have to budget some money to evict the people living in New Orleans, Miami, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Virginia Beach etc.

"Making the insurance companies pay the claims" - we do that already through the courts, so not much savings there.

No, just don't rebuild after the storm wipes them out. This shoveling sand back to where it was then building a house on it is absolutely idiotic especially if they are not on stilts, like most are in the Outer Banks. You're not going to keep a rising sea out. Most are tired of hearing about the sorry people with beach homes, many second home to boot.

[billvon 3,132]

>No, just don't rebuild after the storm wipes them out.

OK. That saves more like 5% rather than 100% of FEMA's cost (the money that goes towards rebuilding homes, which is a very small fraction of what FEMA spends.)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>No, just don't rebuild after the storm wipes them out.

OK. That saves more like 5% rather than 100% of FEMA's cost (the money that goes towards rebuilding homes, which is a very small fraction of what FEMA spends.)

What? Fema wouldn't have any costs or costs are greatly reduced if Fema didn't have to pay to rebuild. For God sakes they gave people in NJ money for rent to leave their wreck and go somewhere else and the people took the money and continued to live intheir bombed out shack! There's never any stipulation when Gov't hands out the money. For instance they could have said: here's the rent money now leave. But they didn't do that so NJ is getting paid to camp out in their messed up house and I seriously doubt they've not continued to pay their mortgage. US tax dollars being wasted as the money isn't being used for what it was intended. Money wasted.

So when is not looking at saving even 1% in many specific areas not a good idea as you believe, that anything so small saving is waste of time. ?????? I'm not getting your point. Sure 1% isn't much but a lot of 1 percenters might add up to billions.

There's not one thing the gov't can cut that would cure this that cutting many percentages across the enterprise is the only solution. But if you think there is one huge 40 percenter or 80 percenter that can be cut to get the reductions you're looking for then that's your opinion. OK end social security. Won't happen.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So when is not looking at saving even 1% in many specific areas not a good idea as you believe, that anything so small saving is waste of time. ?????? I'm not getting your point. Sure 1% isn't much but a lot of 1 percenters might add up to billions.

I think that when you take a realistic look at cutting these small amounts, implementation often costs more than possible savings.

Just like in business, some operational loss is to be expected, as long as it stays within certain parameters, those are not the most effective areas to be focussing on for a significant net reduction in expenditures.

[billvon 3,132]

>So when is not looking at saving even 1% in many specific areas not a good idea
>as you believe, that anything so small saving is waste of time.

Not at all! 1% savings is a good start, and we should look for such savings. But it is only that, a start. Many people hear about this 1% savings or that 1% savings and think "do that and we're done!"

>There's not one thing the gov't can cut that would cure this that cutting
>many percentages across the enterprise is the only solution

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately no one wants to do that. In another thread here, a republican supporter who has been attacking the democrats for spending too much just said he want to spend more on HIS favorite government program. Get enough of those people together (which we have) and spending continues to climb.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

So when is not looking at saving even 1% in many specific areas not a good idea as you believe, that anything so small saving is waste of time. ?????? I'm not getting your point. Sure 1% isn't much but a lot of 1 percenters might add up to billions.

I think that when you take a realistic look at cutting these small amounts, implementation often costs more than possible savings.

Just like in business, some operational loss is to be expected, as long as it stays within certain parameters, those are not the most effective areas to be focussing on for a significant net reduction in expenditures.

If any business ran itself the way the Government did it would have ceased to exist a long time ago. When you've got this big a problem nothing can be overlooked. The operational loss example only works if you're operating at a net profit.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If any business ran itself the way the Government did it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

Right, except a government isn't the same as a business. Running a country is simply not equivalent to running a business.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

If any business ran itself the way the Government did it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

Right, except a government isn't the same as a business. Running a country is simply not equivalent to running a business.

Thanks for proving my point.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

What point do you think is proven?

You really think the country should be run like a business? Do you have any clue what that would mean?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What point do you think is proven?

You really think the country should be run like a business? Do you have any clue what that would mean?

We've got all kinds of problems with it. it turns out that governments, like people and businesses, can go bankrupt. Many here in the US are doing it.

By my count we’ve got 7 bankruptcies of local governments in the last couple of years and another ten governmental agencies/utilities, etc. Much has to do with pension issues for retirees – which is a massive and growing problem.

And that affects credit ratings. The municipal bond market isn’t exactly happy. 13 states out of 50 have AAA credit ratings. And the problem is spending that is vastly outpacing revenue. Just like a business – when the opportunity to get a loan dries up, you gotta look someplace else for the money, which is deciding where to spend it. And it requires austerity.

Now, if the government isn’t so massively intrusive that it is the prime mover of the economy then it isn’t a problem. But since the federal government has its hands in everything now, it could be disasterous.

The nation is a corporation. Each state is a subsidiary corporation. With municipal corporations underneath it. Each has a board of directors (Congress), officers (Executive branch) and shareholders (people). And it turns out that shareholders of the national corporation are themselves greedy and want to receive a higher dividend, and have a demonstrated history of hiring CEOs who will provide the most dividends to the people/shareholders.

I can quite easily compare government to a corporation. There are more similarities than differences. Only the governments can create markets and maintain monopolies on them by limiting consumer choice of even whether to participate (see ACA), thus expanding its control.

Yes, I CAN compare government and corporations. Government is a corporation. And the people involved all seem to be taking on a blend of Dick Fuld and Fred Joseph – run up debts, put it off to the future, let hubris prevent any discourse that something is rotten, and then have no plan to deal with the possible default.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

A bunch of good Jews would be put in charge of running the country and it would be a smashing success.

They are running it. It's the shadow gov't behind the curtain. Wall Street operatives wiith their lawyers and policy makers. Hell, there's no reason whatsoever to become a representative but to do insider trading. Just look at the photo of Obama and Romeny at the White House last week for their little luncheon. Who is the guy behind the door? Pretty symbolic that no one noticed that the real people running the show are not who you think are running it.

Watch the close up of the zoom on the lunch. Creepy.



http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/50018453#50018453

[airdvr 210]

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/2017365623001/

“It is impossible for 109 million workers (in the private sector) to support 87 million people. It can’t be done.”

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes, I CAN compare government and corporations. Government is a corporation.

Really?

So you favour government stopping any spending on people who do not pay taxes? Since as a business you don't focus on non-paying customers.

You would also favour the government stop any activity that does not run a profit?

Military, gone. NASA, gone. CIA, gone. Homeland Security gone. Massive investment in DEA, so confiscated proceeds can be kept.

Justice system, gone. Supreme Court, gone. Senate and House of Representatives massively reduced and true power and decision making consolidated to one or maybe 2 positions. Board of Directors (Congress) is generally hand picked and holds no true power.

etc, etc, etc

[lawrocket 3]

Where did you get those ideas?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Where did you get those ideas?

I'm sure SkyDekker will answer for himself, but in my case I thought corporations at least seek to make a profit. None of the agencies SkyDekker lists are profit-making, nor do they seek to be so. Indeed, one might argue that the proper scope of government is to provide essential services that are inherently not marketable for profit. Of course, we can quibble endlessly about what "essential" means.

What I take from your earlier post about "government is a corporation" is that ANY organization with any level of administrative structure is a corporation. Any club that has a "president" and a "budget officer" has an administrative structure and so is a corporation. The problem there is that when a term (corporation in this case) is so broadly drawn that it includes everything, it becomes useless to describe anything or provide any level of nuance.

Corporations are entities that exist to sell a service or a product at a profit. Governments by definition should never be corporations.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Channman 2]

While reading your post, I had this thought...just a thought nothing that will change the world. Seems to me in my observation that many American families run their family finances much like our government, i.e. with deficient spending.

How many American families truely work toward financial independance and or reduce their debt? We all know many that do, but I come across many in my daily life that are doing nothing to prepair for tomorrow.

So maybe the problem is "US", we don't practice what we preach

[airdvr 210]

Guess you've never heard of non-profit corporations.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

How many American families truely work toward financial independance and or reduce their debt? We all know many that do, but I come across many in my daily life that are doing nothing to prepair for tomorrow.

Certainly that is true. Indeed, there is (or has been) a level of temptation that is hard to resist with easy credit. Why wait until you can pay cash for that plasma TV when you can get it now? Never mind that you'll pay half again as much in interest, don't you want it right now? Instant gratification and the need to have the latest gizmo has replaced forethought and planning for many.

Quote

So maybe the problem is "US", we don't practice what we preach

I think the problem is "US" on several levels. "We" tend to take for granted, even demand, services and infrastructure provided to us by our society, but insist that others should pay for it. For too many people, the world does actually work that way: they get the benefits without shouldering any of the costs, which breeds resentment on the part of those who do pay. Political "scientists" tell us that "if you're explaining you're losing", and it's true, so we end up electing politicians who feed us bumper sticker slogans without any substance. We all claim to be repulsed by "attack ads", but numerous studies have shown that they work. By being too lazy to think seriously about issues, and by falling for political lies, we have turned politics into a theater of the absurd instead of a means of selecting the most knowledgeable and thoughtful people for political office. Indeed, the problem is "us".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[airdvr 210]

While I agree with much of your post I don't think the problem is us. I have a right to expect my doctor is doing the right things. And my accountant and attorney. I also have that expectation of the government. I don't know about you but I personally pay much more to my Uncle Sam than I do to any of the other 3.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

While I agree with much of your post I don't think the problem is us. I have a right to expect my doctor is doing the right things. And my accountant and attorney. I also have that expectation of the government. I don't know about you but I personally pay much more to my Uncle Sam than I do to any of the other 3.

True enough. But your doctor, accountant, and attorney are licensed by the government, in order to establish minimum standards of training, and misconduct can result in the loss of the license as well as other punitive measures. This is actually an example of how we rely on government for many services we aren't even aware they provide. At the top, though, we place it all in the hands of people who often aren't asked to present any qualifications beyond access to lots of money, and maybe (as a distant 2nd) the ability to deliver a barn-burner speech.

If politicians as a group are deserving of the contempt many (most) people have for them, we have to ask why such people get elected, and why others who are thoughtful and have the appropriate training and experience don't, or choose not to seek office at all. Case in point, if Huntsman had been selected as the Republican nominee I would certainly have considered him very seriously, but from the very beginning he was a non-contender against the likes of Perry and Bachman.

By the way, I don't agree with the idea that every single politician is incompetent and only there for their own power, but the system does seem to select for such people. And, ultimately, the "system" is the voting public. And that is "US".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[airdvr 210]

I agree. I don't think any politician goes to DC thinking he's going to be crooked. I think he/she soon finds that the old boy network stymies any honest attempt to accomplish anything. Add in lobbyists and you've got a recipe for payola.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne