There have been a lot of good cuts proposed this year with the new congress. What are the ones you all want the most?

I want to have one called the "Democrats Are Liars Act". They said they were not going to fund abortions. They are funding abortions. They lied about that.

We could also save more money by getting rid of these groups:

-Department of education
-Department of agriculture (why do you need a department to grow plants?)
-Department of EPA (aimed at global warming, which was proven not real. Al Gore was sued by 300000 scientists over this)
-Homeland Security (spying on us)
-Department of Welfare (CHARITY and CHURCHES not WELFARE)
-Gun control (historicaly RACIST http://www.wearechange.org/?p=5822
-Ending paper currency (deflation not inflation. debts paid in gold not fake paper)

1/22/2011 2:42:16 PM

your post is retarded, but you know that because you are a trolling alias

in before the bucket

1/22/2011 2:47:42 PM

the spending cuts proposal was a good start. But you have to get into entitlements and defense cuts to have real impact. Repelling obamacare will help control costs longterm.

1/22/2011 3:24:17 PM

Don't we already have a thread for this?

1/22/2011 3:51:52 PM

there are groups that are already starting to try to abolish medicare

http://www.stopmedicare.org/

also, here you can see how to abolish social security
http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/qass.html

this too on how healthcare is not a right
http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01.html

1/22/2011 5:01:44 PM

I dont think you will see a serious threat to medicare, unless they pass on the reimbursement cuts. I do think they need to raise the premiums and this is the first year they are means testing peoples premiums. But can you really justify erection meds being covered?

1/22/2011 5:21:23 PM

How about the 100-something billion the Sec. Def. proposed? Oh that's right, Republicans don't actually care about meaningful spending cuts. They'd rather posture and cluck about defunding NPR. . .

1/22/2011 5:42:51 PM

Very few of the lawmakers will want to make cuts in spending for the programs that take most of the tax dollars...until they have no choice....they have a few more years before then....

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/21/news/economy/spending_taxes_debt/

1/23/2011 12:34:54 PM

Your list is pretty retarded but...

Quote :

"Department of EPA (aimed at global warming, which was proven not real. Al Gore was sued by 300000 scientists over this)"

You know thats not all the EPA does, right?

1/23/2011 2:47:09 PM

The "untouchable" parts of the budget are medicare/social security and the military. No one is talking about cutting any of those substantially. Big surprise: the new crop of politicians are cowards, just like the last crop. It's easier to do what's popular and hope that the next guy in your seat has to deal with the problems.

1/23/2011 2:56:24 PM

is this thread a joke?

1/23/2011 2:56:29 PM

Why can't we eliminate Social Security? Pay out what's owed and just end it but encourage and help with individuals to set up for their own retirement instead of giving the government an interest free loan. Maybe I have a flawed understanding of SS, but wasn't it supposed to just be a retirement supplement anyways? I also don't like the notion of the government telling me that I don't know how to manage my money. They could at least refund or just a tax break to those who do have their own, private retirement account(s) set up.

1/23/2011 3:34:41 PM

Well, we could end social security, there's just no political will to do it. No matter what, you're going to be saying "fuck you" to one generation or the other. Of course, if we allow things to continue as they are now, it'll effectively be a "fuck you" to every generation, but most people don't understand that, and hardly anyone in Washington has the courage to say it.

There's a lot of potential band aids that could be used to keep SS going for a bit longer. There's now a large population of elderly people that pretty much need their checks to survive. We could implement some kind of reduced benefit plan. Something like, all people 55 or up will get the full benefit. For each year below that cut off, you get 1-5% less than you would have gotten, until eventually it's phased out entirely. I can't think of any scenario where our generation doesn't get screwed royally.

1/23/2011 4:18:17 PM

Maybe I am just sounding smug since I have financial independence and have the flexibility to put away for my future. Why aren't we, as a society, pushing for more personal responsibility that teaches folks to think about their decisions? I'm not talking about boot strap nonsense, I am talking about decisions pertaining to education, careers and family planning. Yes, not everyone is capable of graduating from college and may not have a lucrative career, but why should I be obliged to help fund their retirement because they couldn't manage their money?

1/23/2011 4:46:16 PM

Quote :

"Why aren't we, as a society, pushing for more personal responsibility that teaches folks to think about their decisions?"

because the Democratic Party wants people to be dependent upon Government, which means personal responsibility is a bad thing to them. And this dependence garners them votes, whether it be from minorities or the AARP. But, it's all done in the guise of "helping the less fortunate." That's the great thing about entitlements: you get the votes and the ability to hold it over someone else's heads.

1/23/2011 5:11:35 PM

I think the argument would be that, in many cases, people are victims of their circumstances or upbringing, rather than purely bad decision making. While that may frequently turn out to be true, the government has proven to be an ineffective apparatus for alleviating those problems. The welfare state itself ends up becoming a larger problem than the one it aims to fix, which is what we're (not) dealing with now.

1/23/2011 5:30:53 PM

Quote :

"Why can't we eliminate Social Security? Pay out what's owed and just end it but encourage and help with individuals to set up for their own retirement instead of giving the government an interest free loan. "

could we even afford to do that? pay out what's owed without new people paying into it? i doubt it.

1/23/2011 5:46:32 PM

Quote :

"Why can't we eliminate Social Security?"

It would be easy. Just declare SS to be a defined benefit program pegged to inflation. Reduce the highest benefits and increase the lowest benefits so every SS recipient receives the same check every month. The savings from reducing the benefits of the rich and middle class will swamp the increased benefits to the elderly poor.

Meanwhile, the current program is pegged to wages, so every year of economic growth jacks up the benefits of future retires. However, peg benefits to inflation instead and in a generation current SS benefits will be relatively cheap, no need to end benefits.

1/23/2011 5:59:09 PM

My mom is going to retire in a week (school teacher), she is one of the first of the baby boomers to retire in the county where she teaches, the flood will soon start everywhere....all those boomers are going to depend on SS and there is no way the money is there to pay for what is owed to all the boomers who will be retiring within the next 10 or so years.

1/23/2011 7:56:42 PM

Quote :

"Why aren't we, as a society, pushing for more personal responsibility that teaches folks to think about their decisions? I'm not talking about boot strap nonsense, I am talking about decisions pertaining to education, careers and family planning. Yes, not everyone is capable of graduating from college and may not have a lucrative career, but why should I be obliged to help fund their retirement because they couldn't manage their money?"

Careful there, HockeyRoman. You're sounding a lot like a Libertarian with that kinda talk.

1/24/2011 2:53:59 AM

social security needs a bigass overhaul.

turn it into what it was supposed to be, a forced savings plan, with all you put in DIRECTLY tied to YOU individually, none of this one big pot bullshit. the government invests your money in itself and other very safe things, practically guaranteeing your money will grow at or above inflation rate over time, then when you retire you get your money payed back out to you.

simple.

folks near the higher end of the income spectrum pay a % or 2 more so that folks on the lowest end get a % or 2 more back in the end (should make you sopping we liberals happy to some extent)

that way this shit pays for itself only, all the capital can be used to stabilize the market (and other things, im not much of econ person so that isn't probably the best way to put it) or something.

1/24/2011 3:16:33 AM

Quote :

"Why aren't we, as a society, pushing for more personal responsibility that teaches folks to think about their decisions? I'm not talking about boot strap nonsense, I am talking about decisions pertaining to education, careers and family planning. Yes, not everyone is capable of graduating from college and may not have a lucrative career, but why should I be obliged to help fund their retirement because they couldn't manage their money?"

When our government enters into obligations that are at minimum dubious as to its ability to satisfy them, do you really think that a higher standard makes sense to apply to the masses working low-paying jobs? Heck, retirement isn't even really an implicit obligation, it's just planning ahead vs. screwing yourself.

1/24/2011 2:45:47 PM

Quote :

"Careful there, HockeyRoman. You're sounding a lot like a Libertarian with that kinda talk."

I think he's talking about making it an education priority, and a libertarian wouldn't give a shit as long as he knows what's best (and of course he does).

1/24/2011 3:02:36 PM

"Personal responsibility" is a libertarian buzzword and the underpinning of the libertarian dogma that people should be self-reliant rather than depending on the gubment to save for their retirement, among other things. I'm pretty sure that all libertarians would advocate our schools stressing the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility, no matter how much they hate public schools and the department of education. The 'why should I have to pay for their ignorance?' sentiment is pretty much the driving force behind libertarian nerd rage.

HockeyRoman's post could've easily come from a libertarian blog.

[Edited on January 24, 2011 at 3:25 PM. Reason : 2]

1/24/2011 3:15:42 PM

If you didn't decided not to pay the firefighter tax, I don't see why they should put out the fire.

Unbundled services is always the better option, it gives people more options and the right to opt out of government selectively.

1/24/2011 3:21:04 PM

What's the bigger joke? That this thread is still around? Or that there are serious replies in it?

1/24/2011 3:23:58 PM

Quote :

"because the Democratic Party wants people to be dependent upon Government"

>implying that the republican party doesn't support the largest entitlement programs

Quote :

"It would be easy. Just declare SS to be a defined benefit program pegged to inflation. Reduce the highest benefits and increase the lowest benefits so every SS recipient receives the same check every month. The savings from reducing the benefits of the rich and middle class will swamp the increased benefits to the elderly poor. Meanwhile, the current program is pegged to wages, so every year of economic growth jacks up the benefits of future retires. However, peg benefits to inflation instead and in a generation current SS benefits will be relatively cheap, no need to end benefits. "

Quote :

"turn it into what it was supposed to be, a forced savings plan, with all you put in DIRECTLY tied to YOU individually, none of this one big pot bullshit. the government invests your money in itself and other very safe things, practically guaranteeing your money will grow at or above inflation rate over time, then when you retire you get your money payed back out to you. "

Do you even know how SS works? It's fairly similar to what you just stated it "should" be, except a bit more like an annuity.

1/24/2011 3:35:42 PM

This is just in 9 years. Someone needs to take actions before the riots start. imo

http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/storysupplement/spending_pie/index.html

1/24/2011 4:24:56 PM

a disaster is always impending and looming just "ten years in the future"

anyhow, 250 billion ought to be enough for anyone.

1/24/2011 5:13:50 PM

Quote :

"The "untouchable" parts of the budget are medicare/social security and the military. No one is talking about cutting any of those substantially. Big surprise: the new crop of politicians are cowards, just like the last crop. It's easier to do what's popular and hope that the next guy in your seat has to deal with the problems."

I don't know about the DoD budget anymore. There's no way it's going to avoid a cut. SecDef Gates has tried to do some internal trimming to preempt Congress, but we'll see if that happens. The real question is what will be cut: there are a lot of sacred cows whose names have been floated (F-35 the most prominent).

1/24/2011 7:33:17 PM

I don't know how much internal trimming there is to do. The DoD budget makes up somewhere between 400 and 700 billion a year. That's pretty substantial. The real issue is that there will need to be a change in philosophy with TPTB, shifting away from the United States being the "world's policeman" to having a military that is just for national defense. Republicans aren't likely to make any big concessions, like closing down bases or withdrawing troops. Elect Ron Paul in 2012, and it'll happen. Elect basically any other Republican contender or re-elect Obama, and it won't. It really is that simple.

1/24/2011 7:44:25 PM

Quote :

"Do you even know how SS works? It's fairly similar to what you just stated it "should" be, except a bit more like an annuity."

that was the original intent (also ment to be a short term stop-gap not a permanent plan) it's not what it is now, else it wouldn't be LOSING money.... (inflation is flat atm)

currently paying out more than it's taking in

to be frank it should not be included in any sort of tax realm at all really. as it's not really income.

1/26/2011 4:12:38 PM

^SS is a ponzi scheme... the only legal one in the US. go figure.

You get people to pay into the system and in return they get the promise that in the future others will pay for their benefit.

Like maddoff, our govt pissed the money away on different things and now we dont have enough *new investors to pay for those cashing out.

Remember when people thought private accounts were such a bad idea.

1/26/2011 9:12:28 PM

I'm sure there are other legal ponzi schemes in the US

1/26/2011 9:14:08 PM

^there WAS, just ask Madoff

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ..]

1/26/2011 9:27:25 PM

Quote :

"HockeyRoman's post could've easily come from a libertarian blog."

I am sorry to hear that. My thoughts and posts are certainly my own. I would certainly lose my libertarian credentials when it comes to spending money on environmental conservation. It does suck that "personal responsibility" has been boiled down to a buzzword. My contention is that money is and should be the driving force behind all action. I believe that happiness should be one's key motivation and not simply trying to keep up with the Jones' in a feeble attempt to placate vanity. That said, I've become very guarded with my money and while I understand my civic duty of recompense it seems prudent to draw attention to the futility of programs like social security.

1/26/2011 9:30:52 PM

Quote :

" "Why can't we eliminate Social Security? Pay out what's owed and just end it but encourage and help with individuals to set up for their own retirement instead of giving the government an interest free loan. " could we even afford to do that? pay out what's owed without new people paying into it? i doubt it. "

Since when does what we can afford make any difference?

I've long thought this is an idea worth looking into...pay out what's owed, even though it would require massive deficit spending, and then be rid of it forever. WAY cheaper in the long run. Just tear the fucking band-aid off and get it over with.

1/26/2011 9:49:07 PM

Quote :

"I would certainly lose my libertarian credentials when it comes to spending money on environmental conservation."

Environmental conservation is not counter-libertarian, in my view.

1/26/2011 9:53:46 PM

I've always been told by the Lonesnark types that if there is a market for environmental conservation then it will happen and that the government shouldn't be involved. He'll regale us with stories of some river in New York that for the first time in 100 years is now clean so who needs the EPA? And that if companies aren't environmentally responsible then consumers will magically know this and will stop buying from them (even though the reality is that companies go to great lengths to hide their destructive influence and/or undertake in greenwashing). The federal government should abandon their cap-and-trade smokescreen and focus on very real pollutants/toxins, habitat loss and urban sprawl and dare the hypercapitalists to somehow defend their practices.

1/26/2011 10:31:07 PM

Quote :

"Environmental conservation is not counter-libertarian, in my view."

But it is communism!

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/26/new-mexico-environment/

Quote :

"New Mexico Governor Appoints Man Who Believes Environmentalists Are Communists To Head State Agency ... I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement. That’s not to say there aren’t some major and significant environmental issues, particularly at the local level, but they converted environmental activism to a political movement and some would say a religious movement."

1/26/2011 10:35:48 PM

^^ Why? None of what you said was true. I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. If Walmart pollutes a stream, it will not be its customers that stop it, but the police (men with guns) showing up to enforce a court judgment brought by all those living on the river that were harmed by the pollution. It was only ever idiotic environmentalists that pushed for the ideal of consumers fighting pollution because they dream of living in a world without property rights, and in such a world only consumers could wage such battles. As a believer in property rights, I don't need consumers to fight polluters; in my world property owners will fight for their own interests.

1/27/2011 1:42:37 AM

So what happens when they claim their interests are to do whatever the fuck they want to with anything on their property?

1/27/2011 2:07:09 AM

Does what they want to do harm anyone else or their property? If so, then the police (men with guns) will show up.

1/27/2011 9:05:09 AM

Quote :

" If Walmart pollutes a stream, it will not be its customers that stop it, but the police (men with guns) showing up to enforce a court judgment brought by all those living on the river that were harmed by the pollution."

The problem with this is how much evidence is needed to prove harm? Big companies can lawyer up and they are damned good at denying their pollution was causing harm. Who is going to conduct the science to show that it was in fact Walmart that was polluting and it was their pollution that caused the harm? The problem with environmental studies of this sort is that it is very difficult to make them 100% conclusive. There will always be some doubt because of all the confounding factors that are involved (some might even say if it is good science, there is always some room for doubt). These big companies are experts at twisting those doubts until they wiggle out of lawsuits. How long did Monsanto deny that PCBs were harmless? How long did cigarette companies deny that their products caused cancer (not a perfect analogy because their product was bought, I know, but the denial of science is the same)


Not to mention the injustice this does to poorer people. Poor people can't afford environmental monitoring of their properties, and they can't really afford to bring a lawsuit against a company. Yes, lawyers work pro bono, but often only when they know its a sure win. I realize that environmental injustice already exists in the world today, but it seems to me a system like the one you suggest would just make it worse.

Quote :

"It was only ever idiotic environmentalists that pushed for the ideal of consumers fighting pollution because they dream of living in a world without property rights, and in such a world only consumers could wage such battles."

Thats not how I see it at all. As companies moved their manufacturing overseas, often to places with lax or nonexistant environmental laws, they were allowed to continue to pollute. Americans, realizing that the products they were buying were causing damage to other people, who don't have many rights, felt SOLIDARITY with those people and decided not to buy from the company.


I know solidarity, mutual aid, and cooperation must be foreign concepts to hyper-individualists, but they are very real to some and are the basis of a utopia that, in the end, is not that much different.








[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 9:43 AM. Reason : also why do libertarians almost always qualify police as (men with guns)?]

1/27/2011 9:30:08 AM

Quote :

"The problem with environmental studies of this sort is that it is very difficult to make them 100% conclusive. There will always be some doubt because of all the confounding factors that are involved "

The standard for civil trials is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but instead "more likely than not." So there is no need to prove harm 100% conclusive to profit.

The issue with today's world is that the statutory law has circumvented common law. The legislature has proclaimed that an industry has a right to pollute up to a statutory amount. As such, under the current laws, to win in court you must demonstrate not only that they they are polluting, that you have been harmed and how much, but also that the pollution in question exceeded the state/federal legal statutes. It is this last step which is improbable without a whistle-blower.

Quote :

"Americans, realizing that the products they were buying were causing damage to other people, who don't have many rights, felt SOLIDARITY with those people and decided not to buy from the company"

Foreign people living in a foreign land have a right to live how they choose to live. Besides that fact, I find the death argument persuasive. Whatever structural changes I would advocate making to their society, there is no doubt they are poor and many of their citizens are barely surviving. No point killing them just so we can feel better about where we shop. Happily, American society agrees with me, as such consumer driven boycotts almost always fail.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/27/2011 10:38:14 AM

Yeah, who cares if some other country wipes out entire eco-systems in the name of profit. As long as they still sell us cheap goods!

1/27/2011 11:05:44 AM

What would you have us do? Invade? Aerial bombing has been shown to accomplish many things. Environmental protection is not one of them.

1/27/2011 11:47:09 AM

Just off the top of my head, coming up with cheaper, more environmentally friendly technology that we could sell to polluter nations (and use ourselves) is moving in the right direction. Ultimately, though, I think innovation is going to be spurred on by necessity. For instance, the demand for hybrids and electric cars will increase as the price of oil goes up, until eventually, hybrids/electrics are a better option for the average consumer.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2011 11:51:16 AM

Quote :

"The standard for civil trials is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but instead "more likely than not." So there is no need to prove harm 100% conclusive to profit. The issue with today's world is that the statutory law has circumvented common law. The legislature has proclaimed that an industry has a right to pollute up to a statutory amount. As such, under the current laws, to win in court you must demonstrate not only that they they are polluting, that you have been harmed and how much, but also that the pollution in question exceeded the state/federal legal statutes. It is this last step which is improbable without a whistle-blower. "

The point still stands that even if you can show that pollution was released one can still raise doubt that it caused harm even in an "more likely than not" evidence standard. Proving harm, especially when dealing with diseases like cancer or birth defects, is by far the most burdensome part of an environmental suit. Far more difficult than proving that pollution has exceeded legal statutes. This is why statutory laws were established to govern pollution. They give authority as to what has been established as harmful, using good science and studies, instead of lawyers and judges trying to reach a conclusion.

Quote :

" I find the death argument persuasive. Whatever structural changes I would advocate making to their society, there is no doubt they are poor and many of their citizens are barely surviving. No point killing them just so we can feel better about where we shop."

This might be true in some cases, but definitely not in all. Just because someone isn't earning a wage doesn't automatically mean they are dying in the streets. Plenty of subsistence cultures have had to deal with pollution without any of the industry's benefits. Unfortunately, they have no legal recourse.

1/27/2011 12:40:12 PM

Quote :

"it's not what it is now, else it wouldn't be LOSING money.... (inflation is flat atm)"

That's what it is. It is losing money because we have more people paying out than paying in. The way when it was set up paid immediately. So we start SS, gen 'A' collects without paying in, gen 'B' pays in, then gen 'B' collects and gen 'C' pays in, then 'C' collects while 'D' pays in. If C is larger than D, we will have a problem, and that is exactly what happened.

Quote :

"You get people to pay into the system and in return they get the promise that in the future others will pay for their benefit."

That's a pyramid scheme. A Ponzi scheme requires deception.

1/27/2011 2:04:54 PM