Political Discussion: 50 Dead-Simple Ways For The US To Cut Its Budget

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#4
Cause thats who made the list, Trip.

BTW, I'm all in favor of the research into "How much booze does it take for college freshmen to say yes", but it's a waste of money. All they have to do is ask me, I did that "research" years ago.
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#5
Okay. I didn't make it to the bottom of the first page the first time I read it. They had every single page sourced to "The Heritage Foundation" and I kept expecting to see other sources as a result.

- Trip
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#8
I don't care if they lean right or left- All I know is they DID point out some really stupid things we shouldn't be paying for.

Why does our government care about how much Chinese prostitutes drink? Unless you're an American government employee in China...

I may have answered my own question.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#9
I see that Trip and EV come down on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. For the record I'm a liberterian Republican. A political discussion might be fun, if we all agreed to not name call, or spew venom. I would find it interesting to find out why Trip finds himself on the side of the aisle that he is on. ;)
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#10
On the subject of the Heritage foundation: I am sure that John Boner screwed us out of about the same amount of money as Nancy PugUgly. Why isn't THAT number reported by the Heritage Foundation as "front page news"?

Most of our overspending could be eliminated by banning "earmarks" and restricting the lobbyists.

While we're at it, lets have politicians get only the same benefits we do, and limit EVERY political office to 2 terms?
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#11
If we're honest pork barrel politic is the M.O. of both big tent parties. And politicians run on their ability to "bring home the bacon for the folks back home" from both parties, which is why I'll be surprised if we ever see "ear marks" go away. It's nice to talk about when it makes you look more fiscally responsible after a bad mid-term, or during a campaign, but actually doing it... I'm not holding my breath.
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#12
On the subject of the Heritage foundation: I am sure that John Boner screwed us out of about the same amount of money as Nancy PugUgly. Why isn't THAT number reported by the Heritage Foundation as "front page news"?
Because it's a conservative think tank. Thus why I disagreed with EV calling it "one of the best".

Most of our overspending could be eliminated by banning "earmarks" and restricting the lobbyists.
File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot of the budget is spent in Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Interest on the Debt. Defense is also a big part, though lobbying is a significant issue there. I'm not so sure we can chop down the deficit without raising revenue in some way, even with cuts to programs just from earmarks and lobbying.

- Trip
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#13
Yeah, Earmarks are a small item, but non the less should be chopped.

Cuts should be made to the Social Programs and some Military. Any tax increases should be tied to major cuts.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#14
Although they are the proverbial drop in the bucket, taxpayers would see the banning of earmarks as symbolic, both from a National financial and a political point of view. An earmark that comes to mind is this one, from 2007: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum - USATODAY.com

From the article:

... "Nine days after the "earmark" was placed in the bill in June, Gerry and his wife contributed the maximum of $9,200 to Clinton's primary and general election campaign funds. The Gerry family contributed an additional $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, USA TODAY reported Wednesday." ...

Just how many years have we been waiting for the Line Item Veto and an amendment requiring a Balanced Budget? I suggest one more: requiring lawmakers to (actually) read pending laws before they vote on them.

Jim
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#16
If we're honest pork barrel politic is the M.O. of both big tent parties. And politicians run on their ability to "bring home the bacon for the folks back home" from both parties, which is why I'll be surprised if we ever see "ear marks" go away. It's nice to talk about when it makes you look more fiscally responsible after a bad mid-term, or during a campaign, but actually doing it... I'm not holding my breath.
Indeed, that is why dynasties like Murkowski who oppose a ban on earmarks have to go. They know that their beds are feathered with their ability to shuffle favors and money to people for votes and support. We need to end this and return to Federalism. Let the state legislatures fund projects that states deem important via their own tax base. Shift power to the states and away from the limited Federal Government. Decentralize and return power closer to the people.

People like Murkowski must go.

We put Nikki Haley, the first non white and non woman in the Governor's chair and elected Tim Scott the first Black Republican to sit on the SC delegation since Reconstruction to the US Congress. We flipped one of our 6 Congressional Districts to Republican, ousting long time Congressman Jim Spratt(D) from his seat....now we have 5 of 6 GOP Congressman and 2 GOP Senators including the brilliant Jim Demint (a non lawyer BTW). We do have Grahamnesty, but also Jim "You Lie" Wilson. And unfortunately my Congressman from the raciist gerrymandered 6th district, Jim Clyburn, who has just been demoted to the Black set aside non-position that Nancy Pelosi created in the House for him.

What a world we live in.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#17
Oh, and SC is expected to gain a Congressional seat after the 2010 Census.

Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

By: BARBARA HOLLINGSWORTH

11/17/10 7:00 AM PST

Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform

Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent.

By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent.

continued...
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#19
But, then bills would actually have to be a reasonable length. That would be totally unenforceable other than the argument could be made that the representative "must have read the bill" since it was required. ;)
Amazing how much crap can be packed into a bill that is so big and go un-noticed. Example: The health care bill will reduce the amount you can contribute to both Flex Spending and Medical Savings Accounts, and removes non-prescription, OTC drugs from your flex spending starting in 2013. How many people are even aware of that??

The growth in sheer size of these bills is amazing. The original Medicare bill is 28 pages. The new health care law, by some accounts, is 1990 pages (BTW, the Canadian health care bill is, I believe, only 14 pages!)

The size of the bills is not the only thing thats growing. The growth of cost of these projects is astounding. The Hoover Dam cost about $50 million in 1931 dollars, or about $690 million in 2008 dollars. It took 5 years - finished 2 years ahead of schedule. The recent Hoover Dam Bypass project (Arguably a much smaller project and carried out with better tools than those available in the '30s) cost $240 million, and it took just as long to build.
 
Last edited:
Top