USA Politics

For me, I see govenment as having no moral right to take money out of people's pockets, take food off their table, things away from their kids unless they can show they are maximizing every penny they spent.  With some decent management, modernization, forward looking budgeting, proper bidding for contracts,  and looking to reduce overhead I think it would be possible to reduce government by at least 10 percent (probably much more) with a minimal to no redution in services.
 
I have no disagreement with that concept. I think things can be managed better - but it's a phantom line item. "We'll reduce waste" is meaningless unless we show where the waste can be reduced.

What bothers me about the recent swing in the House is that they have elected Republicans who have absolutely no interest in reducing waste: simply putting it in other areas. The House Appropriation Committee will be headed by the man known proudly in Tennessee (I think, or Kentucky) as the "Prince of Pork".

If the parties actually wanted to look at how to reduce the deficit? I'd love to see them go down, line by line. Cut a fighter program here, reduce a benefit there. Increase a fee here, decrease one there. Freeze wages here, roll some back there. Remove X job and Y job that aren't necessary. But that's not really what's happening. There's a lot of grandstanding, and nothing will change the fact that the US government doesn't have enough tax receipts to cover what goes out, and nobody has an actual plan to fix that. I think restoring the tax rates to where they were in the Clinton years - the first time since the 1930s the US had a balanced budget - is a good first step. I think that covering the rich with higher taxes is absolutely a great step, because it's not like people weren't getting richer in the Clinton years, too.
 
I agreee with your point, unless the GOP goes back to their ealy 1990s mantra, where spending actually was reduced (in part by dealing with Clinton for Welfare Reform).  In 1994-1995 there was some actual decent progress made, it was rather short live though.  The GOP ran on spending less, let's see if they actually pass bills out of the House that do (though I think they have little chance of becoming law).
 
LooseCannon said:
True, it is.

However, spending was at its highest point ever when the Republicans enacted tax cuts they had no intention of paying for. That's important to remember. I'm not saying that spending couldn't be cut in many places, but taxes (especially tax cuts on the upper echelon, sorry cfh) should go up too. Tax cuts don't fix things, they never really have.

I'm interested to know how people would fix the spending issue, which certain aspects of US gov't policy they would chop away.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts always fix things.  Less control, less bureaucracy, less coersion, less self-appointed know-it-alls telling us what's best for "the public".  As for cuts, start with military bases, wars, getting rid of ObamaCare, Bush's "no child left behind".
LooseCannon said:
If you think that's always true. I don't. I look at countries that have high taxes and very high quality of life, and I see that a high-tax high-service economy can be successful. Not all the time, but it's not like the US economy has always run spic-and-span either. There has to be a balance.
Click to expand...

Bah!  That's a myth of the so-called socialist system in Nordic countries.  Most people there do not live as well as as an average American.  Sweden has less taxes for the upper echeleon than USA.  They need to -- how else can they afford such a large bureaucracy.
bearfan said:
For me, I see govenment as having no moral right to take money out of people's pockets, take food off their table, things away from their kids unless they can show they are maximizing every penny they spent.   
Click to expand...

Now we agree.
LooseCannon said:
What bothers me about the recent swing in the House is that they have elected Republicans who have absolutely no interest in reducing waste: simply putting it in other areas. 

.... the first time since the 1930s the US had a balanced budget - is a good first step.
Click to expand...

Agree with the top statement.  Wait?! Are you saying the 30s had a balanced budget.  :huh:
bearfan said:
I agreee with your point, unless the GOP goes back to their ealy 1990s mantra, where spending actually was reduced (in part by dealing with Clinton for Welfare Reform).  In 1994-1995 there was some actual decent progress made, it was rather short live though.   The GOP ran on spending less, let's see if they actually pass bills out of the House that do (though I think they have little chance of becoming law).
Click to expand...

The GOP won't spend less. 
 
I think it was the 20s where they last had a balanced budget. I was rather tired when I was writing last night.

Most people from the Nordic countries don't seem to complain too much. And while perhaps they don't have the highs Americans have in terms of luxury and wealth, they don't have a lot of the lows either.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Bah!  That's a myth of the so-called socialist system in Nordic countries.  Most people there do not live as well as as an average American.  Sweden has less taxes for the upper echeleon than USA.  They need to -- how else can they afford such a large bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

I agree with LC. How DOES the average American live? I'd like to think I live like one if that is the case it is paycheck to paycheck in an apartment, because I can't afford a house working $13/hr jobs... THAT is the average American. sure I can splurge on a now affordable 48" flat screen tv, but so what? Do I need an Xbox to "live better?" or a new kick-ass car? I don't think so. And that's the problem with America, it thinks they NEED a bigger tv, bigger house, bigger cars and sodas... NO YOU DON'T. That doesn't make your life BETTER. Taking a look in the freaking mirror and being happy with yourself and your life choices will. Don't like them? Well instead of buying a Big Mac to ease your guilt START MAKING BETTER CHOICES.

the Nordic goverments fit the bill for me, like No. 5 mentioned WAY earlier, they take care of their people... PERIOD, fuck the "freedom" to get needles luxuries (which Sweden DOES have btw).
 
Genghis Khan said:
Bah!  That's a myth of the so-called socialist system in Nordic countries. 
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should try living in the poorest 10% in both countries and see which is better?
 
Invader said:
Perhaps you should try living in the poorest 10% in both countries and see which is better?
Click to expand...

Why would I want to in either case?  I don't think I should be paying for people's poorer choices.
Onhell said:
I agree with LC. How DOES the average American live? I'd like to think I live like one if that is the case it is paycheck to paycheck in an apartment, because I can't afford a house working $13/hr jobs... THAT is the average American. sure I can splurge on a now affordable 48" flat screen tv, but so what? Do I need an Xbox to "live better?" or a new kick-ass car? I don't think so. And that's the problem with America, it thinks they NEED a bigger tv, bigger house, bigger cars and sodas... NO YOU DON'T. That doesn't make your life BETTER. Taking a look in the freaking mirror and being happy with yourself and your life choices will. Don't like them? Well instead of buying a Big Mac to ease your guilt START MAKING BETTER CHOICES.

the Nordic goverments fit the bill for me, like No. 5 mentioned WAY earlier, they take care of their people... PERIOD, fuck the "freedom" to get needles luxuries (which Sweden DOES have btw).
Click to expand...

So how does losing more control of your life allow you to make better choices? 
 
Genghis Khan said:
Why would I want to in either case?  I don't think I should be paying for people's poorer choices.
Click to expand...

Living in a country where university tuition fees are measured in thousands of dollars (here: free), you don't seriously mean to suggest that not being able to afford a good education  is a "poor choice"?  Getting ill or suffering an accident without a health ensurance or public healthcare is also a choice then?  Being laid off a choice?  The current economic situation peoples' choice?
 
Genghis Khan said:
Why would I want to in either case?  I don't think I should be paying for people's poorer choices.
So how does losing more control of your life allow you to make better choices?  
Click to expand...

you don't get it. People here in the US think that having the freedom to buy crap and choose between pepsi and coke is "better" or makes life "better." than not having that. We already have little choice in our public schooling and even our higher education. You go to a school depending on district, if you are in a poor district you go to a crappy school with, usually, crappy teachers, never mind the stupid policies put forth the by specific school district and state (or country like the idiocy that is no child left behind.)

What freedoms, if you can tell me, are goverments in Sweden, Norway and Finland taking from me if they are allowing me to have a humane standard of living? I will GLADLY give half my paycheck to a government that keeps roads clean and well-kept, doesn't charge me for health care, and gives me a good education. having choices is not necessarily a good thing.

Take this minor example. When I lived in Mexico I would go to the store and by milk, I had the choice between Alpura, Lala, Boreal and the generic store brand. That's it, milk was milk and it was delicious. I move here to the U.S and go to the store for Milk, while the number of brands is about the same I notices something else. Some gallons had green caps, others red, blue or purple. I started reading: Skim milk, whole milk, two percent, one percent, fat free, soy milk... etc. WTF? I just want MILK dammit! They all taste like milk flavored water and I still haven't found one that fits me, so all these choices are for crap.
 
Onhell said:
I will GLADLY give half my paycheck to a government that keeps roads clean and well-kept, doesn't charge me for health care, and gives me a good education. having choices is not necessarily a good thing.
Click to expand...

True. When I was in France I was glad to pay taxes. When I left, I tried to arrange the payment via my new address in Greece, even if I could avoid it so very easily. I sent letters, I made calls, in order to pay. Finally it was too complicated for them and I was exempted. 
 
I admit I do not understand your line of thought, the schools are crappy because there is no choice (no argument there), so we should extend that crappiness or mediocrity to every level of life.  
 
My school wasn't crappy. And there was no choice either. I received a great education at an average set of schools in Canada's poorest province.
 
bearfan said:
I admit I do not understand your line of thought, the schools are crappy because there is no choice (no argument there), so we should extend that crappiness or mediocrity to every level of life. 
Click to expand...

schools are crappy due to allocation of funds, I did not meant to make EVERY school crappy.  That is not logical thinking. I really don't understand why Americans keep thinking that for everyone to have "the same" standard of living it automatically equates everyone having shitty conditions. It is the OPPOSITE, we raise people UP, not bring everybody DOWN. Why is that so hard to understand is beyond me.
 
It's not allocation of funds at all, the US spends the 8700-ish per student, assume a class of 30 kids that is 260,000 per class, this does not include the cost of construction of the actual building as that usually comes from bonds.  Schools that are failing are failing for different reasons beyond juse money.  We have been throwing money at this for years.
 
Throwing money than INVESTING money. And it IS allocation of funds, not all of it is from the federal government. again... schools are divided by districts, if you live in a poor district, not only does your school suck, but your roads have potholes, your road signs sport graffitti and crime is high, because there is no money, from that districts taxes, to pay for road renovation, better school infrastructure (computer labs, libraries, football fields, etc) and even cops to drive by your house when your wife has you in choke hold.

Yet richer districts, due to more funds from their constituents, have nicer roads, nicer schools, houses, etc.... So the federal government can chuck all the money it wants at the schools, it's not the schools themselves, but the people living around it...
 
Onhell said:
Yet richer districts, due to more funds from their constituents, have nicer roads, nicer schools, houses, etc....
Click to expand...

That reminded me a story...  :D
A friend goes to India. She's astonished by the poverty and the general living conditions; Miserable & dirty cows, moving freely everywhere, when people are starving. She is really pissed off and her only thought to calm her nerves down, are the cows: Rich districts, poor districts, what's the difference? they are all equal regarding the cow misery, right? Wrong!
When she moved in a richer district, she realized that the cows, were much more beautiful and 'elegant' than the miserable & dirty cows of the poor districts!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist...
 
@ bearfan

Don't bother arguing.  The problem is they don't understand that there is no such thing as free lunch.  There is certainly no such thing as free education.  They don't understand the source of money, and the nature of the economy.

EDIT: Or the nature of The State.
 
Well, that's a great way to debate.  "We're right, they're stupid, we don't have to argue."

In any case, I don't agree that private business is always more efficient than government.  In my high school class, a girl changed from a private school to our school because the teaching there was crap.  I'd have preferred her to stay in the old school, but that's another story... 

As for free education, I will probably be paying for it manyfold in taxes once I graduate, but if it cost as much as in the US, I could never have had it in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top