Discussions
My Proposal for Cutting the Budget!
Posted by Agit8r • 3/27/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: fiscal responsibility, other quixotic fantasia
1) Withdraw from Iraq
2) Withdraw from Afghanistan
3) Withdraw troops from Germany and Japan (for crying out loud, the war ended 65 yrs ago!!!)
4) Eliminate Farm Subsidies to corporate agribusiness.
5) Replace "Universal Healthcare" with Japanese-style price controls, and subsidized care for the truly poor. Also offer limited liability for private practice physicians (and other sole proprietary businesses for that matter) in order to reduce insurance related costs.
6) Eliminate internal protectionism (corporate welfare)
7) Halve the size of our standing army, while increasing the size of our military reserves/national guard.
8) Increase land-lease rates for natural resource exploitation.
User Comments
-
Never gonna happen. Keep dreaming.
And Japan is just waiting for the US to withdraw to once again make a military play to dominate Asia.-
right, thats why i listed this under "quixotic fantasia"
Nonetheless, they didn't say I didn't offer a better plan. Cause it clearly is -
Japan tried to take over all of Asia for the first time in 1592. They sent a samurai force of over 160,000 to try and conquer Korea, China, and India. Didn't work so well then, but for some reason they never stopped trying.
Probably best to leave a military presence in Japan
The neo-nazis are certainly gaining a lot of strength in Germany again too. Probably best to leave a military presence there as well, not to mention it's a very strategic location. -
Not to mention, the renewed militarism of Russia makes having a base in Japan desirable.
-
agreed. Russia is hardly a predictable country and it's better to be prepared for anything than to be caught with your pants down.
-
Hey, our empire is crumbling. might as well step down gracefully. let those european nations pick up the slack.
-
-
And what would you do with the Navy?-
By "standing army" I meant the full-time military. But the navy probably could be maybe 2/3 of what it is now. idk
-
as a non-republican I'm not the typical person you would expect to support the military, but a strong Navy is a must.
It's great to talk about reducing it by 1/3...but not many people realize the importance of a large navy. The navy keeps oil flowing, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. Take away our naval presence and Iran will just jump for joy and oil prices will skyrocket.
Without a strong US Navy to wave a big stick, China would not hesitate to invade Taiwan. That's not something that should happen either.
The military needs to focus more on minimizing spending on wasteful projects. This will reduce their spending by billions each year. -
Here's a question.
Why does the US feel the need to wave a big stick and prevent any/all military actions of behalf of other countries into other countries?
People wonder why we call it "American Imperialism" - it's because we are in this country and that country, and that country over there. Why? To prevent those countries from acting on their own because we don't feel they should.
If Texas strategically placed it's national guard in other states to prevent those states from doing something Texas felt was wrong, there'd be hell to pay. And if another country set up shop in the US to prevent us from (oh, I dunno, invading places like Iraq) there would be extra hell to pay.
What's good for the Goose is apparently not good for the gander in the US. -
If the Gander is Europe, then its good for the gander. Cause we buy all the guns, so they can afford more butter!
-
-
stop paying celebrities ridiculous amounts of money for films and the like and you will save billions-
Um, I meant the gov't's budget
-
-
Most of that sounds good to me, although I can think of a few more things to add.
I'd better not. *evil grin* -
feel free, I intended to add "any other suggestions?"
-
Oh boy...maybe later, when the kid is asleep and I've had too much coffee.
-
-
Mine:
ACCEPT AND REGULATE AND TAX Online Gaming
Accept and regulate and tax marijuana
I think we'd be out of any type of Deficit in one year.
Just my humble opinion --- I'm sure others will disagree with me - and that's ok... I've just seen that people are going to do it anyway - and the US should BENEFIT from it instead of treating it like social evils.
I mean --- ALCOHOL faced the same type of discrimination at one point - yet - it became --- well what you see now.
WW-
That would take care of this invented mexican crisis.
-
I'm a recovered heroin addict and I completely agree with you.
The fact that arijuana is illegal is simply ridiculous. I'd like to see it taxed and then at least some of the money spent to open free and available treatment centers for people who want help. There are a lot of addicts who would get help if they knew where to go. I know this for certain--I would have gone to treatment at least a year earlier (and likely more) had any place been willing to take me with no money and no insurance).
And for those who are thinking this--just saying no isn't an option to a person who is a full-blown addict. And addiction is complicated (for those who want to be judgmental). For me, a childhood of severe abuse set the stage--and most addicts have one of the following (in most cases): 1) undiagnosed and treated depression (most common) or another psychological problem and 2) trauma in some aspect of their former life that has never been dealt with.
Sorry to get on the soapbox--but the fact that weed is still illegal just sets me off. -
Don't you know? Weed is a gateway drug: the gateway to open your mind and free your thoughts! (does a little hippie dance and waves hands in front of face to the sound of a sitar.)
-
-
Weed is illegal, because "they" think you might not work as hard at killing yourself to feed the corporate machine *only half kidding*
-
This would help the economy out, right
-
Actually - if ALL the politicians OPENLY smoked weed (cause we already know Arnold smoked with Chong) then it might just help the economy out by making ALL the Taxes... And the poor people could keep their tax money -- and have more money to spend... which would lead to a lot of WEED buying... LOL
Which in turn would lead to more money.
Heck - if enough money was made on WEED taxes - then - perhaps the Govt could offer rebates - Like the ALASKA PERMANENT FUND.
Yanno?-
kind of brings a new meaning to "green economy"
-
-
you know - it's kinda funny that I would promote that stuff.
I TRULY - do NOT - indulge.
But I can see the benefits of it - and think it's absolutely absurd that people are terrified of it.
And I read this story about how DUPONT destroyed it - for MONEY - and I have been amazed ever since at all the health benefits and other items from it that I've been shocked that the USA has totally ignored the benefits and made it into something "EVIL".
So - while I don't use it - I can certainly see the benefits of making it legal and taxing it.
I have NEVER seen someone hurt anyone else while ONLY smoking marijuana - which is ILLEGAL - yet... On Alcohol, I have seen fights, people murdered, families ruined, people hurt and accidental deaths... Yet - Alcohol is legal.
The only thing I've seen destroyed by someone smoking pot - was a bag of potato chips.
It makes no sense to me.
WW-
DuPont's influence over the state gov't of Deleware has really led to the current corporate economy so nothing else attributed to this war profiteer would suprise me
-
-
Good list... Why not add a few more
Print More money
Raise Taxes on everyone who owns a business
Print More Money
Redistribute our national wealth with this hair brain UN Plan
Print More money
and did I say, Print more money....
Now to get back to reality, just click your heels and say, I wish I was in DC....-
-
Agit8r, lol... Not intentionally...
-
I won't tell... but The Ministy of Truth may be trap-and-tracing you.
-
-
When it comes to printing money, this chart tells the story:
jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/05/natl_debt_chart_2006_2.gi...-
I guess Obama's will be off the chart...
-
-
Universal government audit. Freeze all budgets and hiring. Audit all government agencies. Insist on justification for expenses. Cut based on waste.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing would never happen... -
Thomas Jefferson believed in audit by the citizens
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure"
Not that I am endorsing such a thing. But Thomas Jefferson did -
Jefferson also said: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money,first by inflation and then by deflation,the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-
I've seen that quote attributed to him, but have never been able to confirm it.
-
hummm, I did hear/read some reputable people quote that, I'll have to dig that up. It does sound about right
Something I have heard is that Andrew Jackson´s epitaph reads "I killed the bank". I find that harder to believe, and have seen no proof of it.
www.thehermitage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=11... -
I'm not saying that YOUR source in not reputable, but rather that I haven't found the original letter etc that it came from, so idk
-
-
Those are all great solutions you've listed Agit8r. Ralph Nader would be proud! I'd also add requiring a "needs" test to Social Security. Neither Warren Buffett nor Dick Cheney need their social security check. Pay people what they put into the system and then cut the chord. The social security system is after all a gigantic ponzi scheme that today's working taxpayers can't afford. Implement this change and we'd save billions.-
right. Social security is a tax. I've often said that it ought to be replaced by a social insurance program based on need and funded through the general fund. instead the opposite has been done. the "trust fund" has been absorbed into the budget for everything from bailing out S&L's to buying Stinger missles for Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen!
thanx for the feedback
-
-
Can't agree with you on this one Agi8r. Reducing the US military by half would result in about three quarters of a million service personnel, many of them veterans, losing their jobs.
At a time when the US unemployment rate is at 8.1% many of the service personnel who have lost their jobs would struggle to find new employment.
One of the few sectors that has avoided serious job cuts is the agricultural sector. Your proposal to end farming subsidies would result in large scale unemployment in this sector. Jobs lost in rural areas are very difficult to replace.
Not sure about your proposal to emulate the Japanese Health Care system as polybore does not know enough about it (will check it out though). However Japan and the USA are so very different in so many ways polybore doubts that this would be an appropriate model.
Withdrawing from Iraq is a good plan. -
Probably halving the military during one budget cycle would be impracticable for logistical reasons as well.
As for the agricultural subsidies, I can't see how this would result in job losses. If they are not being paid to NOT PRODUCE, then logically they could only recoup costs by producing. Granted this might not be cost effective in that more production would result in lower commodity prices. That problem would be up to the firms to figure out. In any case, it seems unlikely that they would produce less, or necessarily use less labor. It would surely hurt the stock price, but I can accept that for the sake of fiscal responsibility.
I should note that I only said cuts for agricultural corporations, not privately owned farms.-
Don't know the reasons for agricultural subsidy in the US but am guessing they are similar to the reasons it happens in the EU. Agriculture is the main employer in rural areas and domestic production would be unable to compete against foreign food imports. Agricultural productive land is of strategic importance to a country.
Although agriculture can be paid to produce nothing it is important that the land continues to be managed which costs money. Otherwise, in the US, you would have a return to "dust bowl" more wildfires etc. Agricultural land can take centuries of work to make productive but can very quickly revert to desert, swamp or forest. In terms of the environment this type of land regression can be viewed as a good thing.
Having said that polybore is not a fan of rich countries subsidising their agriculture and erecting trade barriers at the expense of third world countries whose only exports are agricultural produce.
So now polybore is arguing with themselves because as far as they are concerned the jury is out on this one. It is rather complicated. -
yes it is complicated. In the U.S. Agriculture is dominated by large corporate farms (ConAgra, Cargill, Montsano etc.) over fewer and fewer small farmers. The original subsidies were intended as a hedge against crop failures on the one hand, and overproduction on the other. Giant agrabusiness is able to constrain the crop losses more easily, due to operating in various regions of the country (and often world).
There is also the environmental impact, and there is something to be said for letting land lie fallow. These should, it seems be balanced against the global demand for food products, and the starvation that underproduction can cause.
Taking all these factors into account, it is a tough choice. Though I tend to lean more in the direction that happens to go along with lower spending by the gov't.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
