Well, I was referring to the greed of big gov’t and how they don’t want to skinny their fattened wallets from some of what I deem non-essential programs. I didn’t say aid was greed. But seriously.. how long can we continue to bail other countries’ economies when we need to fix our own issues? You have to help yourself before you’re strong enough to help others, imo.
But fixing our own issues has to include reducing the deficit. Cutting back by $50 billion, and applying every penny of that to the deficit, would reduce the problem of the deficit by something like one-third of one percent.
So you have a reasonably clear answer to your OP - we don’t spend enough on non-essential programs to make much difference.
If we are serious about the deficit - and we had damn well better get started being serious about it - we need to make two lists.
One is a list of all the stuff we can reasonably cut. Everything, in other words, that we can agree is nice-to-have but not essential. On the other list, we make a list of all the stuff that people really need and want, that we cannot really cut.
Then crumple up the first list and throw it away. We don’t spend anywhere near enough on any of those programs to make any difference. All the cuts will have to come off the second list. That means, basically, entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and defense.
Not foreign aid. Sure, we could do some token cutting to make sure nobody goes unscathed (to the extent we can - some things, like payment on the national debt, is Constitutionally obligatory), but we are not going to be able to get out of our current situation in any way even remotely pain-free.
No, we can’t get out of it by taxing the rich, or not giving money to foreign countries. It is going to hurt you.
Or trying to get you to vote for them.
Regards,
Shodan
Agreed! 
Not if you’re questioning the choice to be in the orange business instead of the apple business. Countries all over the world have a happy, healthy, and safe citizenry, even though they spend half (per capita) what we do on nat’l defense. You can justify our spending based on us being the world’s only superpower, with worldwide commitments, but then you have to justify the decision to be the world’s only superpower, and the decision to commit our military to these places.
Not to beat a dead horse, but have you ever flushed a toilet that was connected to a sewer line? Most modern wastewater treatment plants were built with federal grants. You’d probably be surprised at how recently that was. Most upgrades are made with revolving federal loans.
I’m kind of fond of indoor plumbing.
Don’t want to hijack the thread, so I’ll just comment on this and then let it go:
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Not if you’re questioning the choice to be in the orange business instead of the apple business. Countries all over the world have a happy, healthy, and safe citizenry, even though they spend half (per capita) what we do on nat’l defense.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they do…and in a lot of cases, especially in the western world, they can do so because we spend the money needed for our collective defense. Right now, if you are on the US’s side, you don’t need to spend more on defense because we are doing that already. If you aren’t on the US’s side then there really isn’t much reason to spend more because there is no way you could catch up, though obviously countries are still trying (see China).
Eventually that won’t be the case the and US will have to cut back…in fact, we may be at the point now. Do you really think that if the US cuts back massively on defense that things won’t change, and it will be business as usual? That no one will increase their defense spending?? The void that we’ll leave when we cut back will be filled by multiple countries or groups of countries increasing their spending to fill the power vacuum we’ll leave behind, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, world wide, military spending doesn’t increase to exactly the same levels it is today. The only difference will be that instead of one large military superpower paying the lions share, it will be a lot of regional powers across the world increasing their individual or collective spending.
We do it because there has been and continues to be benefit to us by doing so…which is pretty much why all large superpowers from the past spend massive amounts on their military. It’s why, when the US can no longer afford to have a military capable of world wide power projection and we have to massively cut back that there won’t be a void where the US was, but instead a bunch of countries increasing their military spending so as to protect their own interests or to try and fill that void that the US will leave behind.
-XT
The space program is a critical issue. I’d rather much cut Social Security, raise the retirement age, and close a few bases than abandon the space program.
I guess I just don’t see it as a necessity. If things get worse, it’s a luxury in my eyes.
Do you use the internet? Where do you think the vast majority of RESEARCH for those pay as you go medical procedures you get come from?
Face it. CIVILIZATION costs money, TAXES, instead of whining about the perventage like a spoiled child, consider how you live better than all the kings who EVER LIVED before the 1900s. This rosy tinted hue to the glasses of ‘fiscal conservatives’ view of the world is either stupidity or sheer madness.
It’s a tiny drop in the bucket.
Which do you want to cut:
[ul]
[li]Defense[/li][li]Medicare[/li][li]Social Security[/li][/ul]If you want to get serious about reducing government spending, you need to tackle the big programs. Cutting tiny things like NASA, foreign aid, or NPR gets you nothing.
Personally, I think we need to start rapidly demobilizing. Excessive military spending is one of the things that killed the Soviet Union and its going to kill us as well.
I agree.
I find it amusing that the OP opposes government outlay, and wants to go back to the Age of Pioneers. Since, after all, that Age was only made possible by the government giving away huge and valuable tracts of land to anyone who asked for it, completely free.
I guess I don’t see the parallel here. It didn’t cost the government anything to give away land (that wasn’t doing anything ‘useful’ that could bring in government revenue), and in fact it was part of a strategy to get that land into production and settle areas that were completely unsettled (by Americans who would pay taxes) and unused…and eventually bring in tax revenue, as well as expand the useful territory of the US. I agree that going back to the pioneering days is silly (and impossible) but this doesn’t seem a good argument for why it’s impossible and silly.
-XT
And I find it amusing that so many lack ingenuity and a desire for real change. Just keep kicking the can. Done.
There are plenty of technologists on this board who could do a much better job of defending the space program, but let me emphasize three points:
[ul][li] The space program has helped the advance of science, inventions and new materials. Artificial heart valves and modern children’s braces are, IIRC, among the famous examples. Although I had no involvement with “Aerospace”, it was obvious chatting with other engineers in the 1970’s of Silicon Valley that the experience of such government programs bootstrapped the technological infrastructure that led to the Age of Computers. (Admittedly, some of the bootstrapping would have happened even if the space money had been spent on “necessities” like Weapons of Mass Destruction.)[/li][li] The space program’s budget is very small. You could multiply it by 50 and its size would still be called “chump change” in discussions here. Certainly it is far less than what “we” spend on advanced weapons.[/li][li] One can view the space program as theater for the masses, As something to inspire us, as something to watch on TV instead of NFL. It might be illuminating to ask how much is spent on NFL, and is that a necessity? Dollar-for-dollar, I’m certain many Americans would judge the space money much better spent. (Yes, the finances are quite different obviously, as buying NFL tickets is voluntary. Public vs private spending is a whole other issue; please do not hijack yet another thread into Greed is Wisdom; Taxes are Theft, OK? )[/li][/ul]
From your comments, I’d guess you’ve never really “looked at the numbers” on Federal spending, Nica. Is your ignorance being fought here? Don’t feel humiliated if you admit it has; to the contrary such a rare event will win you much respect!
Two further comments.
-
I miswrote to imply spending on sports is purely private. I’m in a hurry and can’t Google the number right now, but public subsidies of professional sports leagues (especially taxpayer-paid stadium construction) is just about the same $$ as the total space program. (Local taxes vs Federal, but it’s the same “taxpayer.”)
-
Nica may be thinking “Whatever, let’s cut some other programs then.” But if you learn anything, learn you must deal with specifics. Your specific examples of foreign aid and space program were both very poor.
Not American here, but doesn’t EVERYONE who works pay into social security? I don’t see how that is an entitlement program then. If I’ve spent 40-50 years paying into a program, when I retire I expect to see that money back.
Whether or not you benefit from a government program is irrelevant. Every program benefits somebody.
Amusing?
Although the current debate seems to be dominated by people in favor of smaller government, there are still significant numbers of people in the country (with or without ingenuity) who believe the changes you suggest are neither economically nor morally justified and who don’t see a need for a fundamental change but relatively minor changes related to depressed revenue and economic growth in the aftermath of a recession and the proper size (if any) of a social safety net.
You seem to operate from the assumption that everybody believes a smaller government is necessarily a morally or economically good thing. This is not a good assumption.
And the ingenious real change you’re proposing is to go back to the 19th century? We had that, and ingenious people proposed the real change of having a society that looks after it’s citizen’s interests rather than ignoring them.