What if something isn’t essential in the sense of survival, but most people agree it makes our society better? Does that make it a valid priority, or an instance of over-expanded government?
Luckily, my doctor takes payments.
Have you ever been admitted to the hospital?
That works great until you need something you can’t afford. Guess what happens then?
Could we break it down by state? Where all the citizens of a state would contribute to state run programs that benefit only themselves? I dunno.
Sure we could. We’d just have to dissolve the federal government. I mean, a lot of those states would be good and fucked, but personally, I relish the idea of a return to fiefdoms.
Actually a lot of things are state-run - Medicaid for example. I haven’t seen any evidence that they do a better job, but it’s certainly possible. Not sure what a state-run Army would look like, we haven’t had that for a very long time.
Vermont just passed a single-payer health-care system, which will be an interesting test.
Since when is military spending “essential”? Sure, some military spending is essential, but the US spends a ridiculous sum of money on the military, and we don’t even have an organized, government level enemy that’s remotely on our scale. We spend 43% of the world’s military budget, China is second, and has 1/6th of our budget.
We probably should cut $150M from the wastrel’s at NPR, Legal Services and Planned Parenthood, rather than decimate the military by cutting a $485M program the Pentagon doesn’t even want.
OK, do you agree that Social Security and Medicare can be significantly cut?
Regards,
Shodan
Just to back up-
Has anyone proposed cutting military pay? I think that would go over like a lead balloon. Cutting defense spending is not the same as reducing pay for people in the military.
Oh God… that damn F-35 engine program. It’s pisses me off every time I see a reference to it… fortunately, I think it’s finally been killed for good (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/25/pentagon-ends-f-35-alternative-engine-project/).
Forget the impact on services, just consider the impact on employment. There are 3,000,000 civilian fderal employees and 288,545 organizationswho contract to provide the gummint with goods or services.
As for foreign aid, in 2008 (last year I have stats for) the U.S. gave a combined $49 billion in military and economic foreign aid combined. That’s $5 billion less than United Technologies made from its government contracts last year.
I’ll agree that our priorities are wrong. But let’s try to figure out what they should be.
A surprising number of people who get government benefits don’t think they get government benefits. Not saying Nica is necessarily one of them, but his/her remarks reminded me of it.
Here’s a NYT blog post about the study: Keep Your Government Hands Off My Government Programs! - The New York Times
It found, for instance, that 47 percent of people who get the Earned Income Tax Credit think they don’t get any government benefits. Forty percent of people who use the GI Bill think they don’t. Fifty-three percent of people who get student loans think they don’t.
Just food for thought.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
We spend 43% of the world’s military budget, China is second, and has 1/6th of our budget.
[/QUOTE]
And China has about 1/100th of our military commitments. We spend 43% of the worlds military budget (assuming your figure is correct) but we pretty obviously have over half of the worlds military commitments, being the only world military superpower, and pretty much the teeth in organizations like NATO.
Whether we SHOULD be carrying the water for the majority of the western worlds defense is debatable, but using these sorts of figures is pretty silly IMHO, since it’s a complete apples to oranges comparison. China is a regional military power with regional military commitments…the US is a world wide military super power with commitments militarily that span the globe. Bit of a difference there.
-XT
I don’t think you realize how hard that would be. There isn’t enough land to grow the food we need without modern technology. Distributing that food also requires technology. And all of that has been supplied directly or indirectly by the government. 300 million people can’t live off the land in this country working individually, or in small groups. Now if we did try it, there would be a rapid decline in the population as people flee, starve, or are murdered, but what’s left won’t be some kind of Little House on the Prairie Utopia.
Don’t bet on that one. Do you have private long-term disability insurance that’s NOT tied to your workplace? (I rather doubt it; most people don’t.) Have you priced it? (Here’s a hint: do this sitting down. You’ll pass out when you see what it costs.)
You’re only one crippling accident away from needing Social Security; it’s the only long-term disability plan the average worker has. And if you look back at history, you’ll see that that safety net was invented for a reason. “Fending for yourself” works well only if you’re young, hale, and lucky. Otherwise, it pretty much sucks.
Has he been paying into it?
In one of his earlier posts the OP said he’s receiving a paycheck, so that’s almost certainly a yes. Most people who are working are paying into Social Security.
CATO made a nice website with their recommendations. Even if you disagree with them (and I am not in 100% agreement), it is a pretty good resource for thinking about how to cut FEDERAL spending.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/
Part of this debate should be both priorities and level of responsibility:
Federal: Defense, Certain programs such as Social Security, Interstates, Scientific Research, Space
State: Schools (shared with Community), Police, State Highways
Community: Police, Streets, Schools, etc.
There is too much overlap, and I think that the system could be improved if we moved more responsibility to the level of government that is best suited. I do not think that the Federal Government should be involved in the K-12 schools, and possibly not even at the University level.
Note - the list above is a quick burst for illustration and should not be seen as anywhere NEAR a complete listing.
I’m surprised you mention foreign aid as one of your major targets. U.S. foreign aid is about $48 billion annual (that’s about $150 per American); over one-third of that goes to three countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, each of which has major significance in the on-going Terror War. Are these three countries you want to cut?
This $48 billion is much bigger than that of the Space program, the other specific you mention, but it’s really not so much: it would take three hundred years of spending at the rate to equal the present Federal debt.
Economic and military aid to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel fits in with our geopolitical and military strategies; I’d look elsewhere for clear signs of greed. Why do you think the aid is due to greed? I know you already know the answer; please tell us.