How should spending cuts be done?

[HeyYou]

@HeyYou

First off the American dream is not dead, we have survived worse if you don't believe me ask your grandparents how they managed in the 1920-30's. Freedom is a very costly thing which requires a certain level of sacrifice, if you think that it was supposed to be a free ride hate to tell you it's not. I will be glad to discuss geopolitics with you on another thread if you care to start one so I will leave the military commitments aside for the time being. If I understood your salient points you would like to withdraw out of all foreign wars cut military spending and all foreign aid, cut tax benefits to corporations? I just want to be clear before responding to your thesis.

 

Look on the first page of this thread for my ideas on what needs to be done. (maybe the second page???)

 

The great depression was a bad time. Yes indeed. My parents were around then. (Yes, I am old. :D) This time around we see much the same things happening, unemployment rising, businesses failing, people losing their homes, home values dropping like stones, and it doesn't appear that things are going to improve any time soon. Last time around, the government put america back to work, with public projects. (some of the same things that Obama is taking flak for at the moment......) Then, we had a world war to rebuild industry here, put america back to work, and have a boatload of G.I.s with money in their pocket after the war was over. That's when the american dream really took off. It was based on the middle class working folk. Today, the middle class is a vanishing species. With free trade, outsourcing, and government incentives to create jobs anywhere else BUT here in the states, the recovery isn't going to happen the same way it did back then. Unless, of course, we get into another world war, but, that will more than likely spell the end of the human race in any event.

 

The US simply cannot compete on the world stage. We got used to our high standard of living, and are loathe to let it go. When a company can pay laborers 200 bucks a month, with no benefits, no health care, no pension, and no environmental protections, as opposed to the situation here, where workers actually expect a living wage, what choice do you think the corporate bosses are going to make? Especially when the government will also give them tax breaks to do so? And this is a good idea how???? The dems are doing the same things the republicans did, when they were in power, (as far as global economics are concerned.) The same bush era policies that destroyed the middle class then, are still in place today, as no one has the political will to go against corporate america, to change things. So, until americans get used to the idea that we are going to become just another third world country, with the haves, and the have-nots, and accept the few dollars per day that employers are willing to pay these days, things will continue just as they are. Unless, of course, americans get off their collective duff, and take our country back from the corporations that own it now. Best way I see to do that is campaign finance reform. Remove corporations from the equation, get rid of paid lobbyists, and that is half the battle right there.

[Aurielius]

End four wars.

I am aware of Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya...would you enlighten me as to the fourth shooting war?

Stop sending money to countries that hate us.

 

Stop sending money to countries that merely tolerate us, and don't even need it.

Not a single problem with this idea.

 

Stop spending money to rebuild things that we blew up earlier, because of the "war on terror". Wanna hide terrorists? Fine, we will expend the ordinance to blow up their bases of operation, and then we WON'T come in and spend billions rebuilding your country.

Again..show me where to sign on the dotted line.

 

Stop giving tax breaks to folks from a specific region, when the immigrate here. It stinks of racial bias, and defeats the purpose of competition. Handing out advantages to new immigrants, gives them better opportunities than the folks that were born here.

You are beginning to sound awfully conservative considering your prior posts...but I can find no fault with this concept.

 

End Tax breaks for "creating jobs in developing nations." Which translates literally to "MOVING jobs TO developing nations."

Once again have no real problem with this as a functioning policy change.

 

Do away with a fair few corporate subsidies. End corporate welfare.

This one will require specifics as to what exactly is corporate welfare, not saying that I oppose it just not sure of the scope you are proposing.

 

Have a long hard look at the various projects, both military, and civilian, that are going on. If they are way over budget, and look like they are going to continue to be. Shut 'em down. ESPECIALLY those that aren't going to deliver what was promised in the first place.

If this is a proposal to eliminate redundant waste in government , then that is a core conservative position. Though stripping our technological military superiority away for short term succor may be short sighted when a serious conflict starts with a non third world power, it will too late when the shooting starts. However there is enough redundant military spending to be cut without going after core research and development. The civilian pet projects that I would like to see go are the congressional earmarks and abomination of legislative graft if there ever was one.

 

End lifetime benefits for folks that serve in washington DC. Model it according to private industry. If you work there for 30 years, THEN you get some good retirement. Not after merely four years, and get a package that is better than anything the private industry offers, even after 50 years.....

 

Oh this one I love.. and I am not being the least bit sarcastic but would like to add the caveat that congress should have to put their pay raises up for ratification by their respective electorates the way bond issues must be approved on a state level, we could include their benefit packages in that as well.

 

Edited July 6, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

Aurielius, I am beginning to like you. :D

 

See, even though I do not consider myself even remotely republican, or democrat for that matter, I WILL admit that some of their ideas have merit, as do some of the dems. Trouble is, any idea associated with/to one of the parties, is automatically a 'bad idea' to the other party.

 

The fourth war is Yemen. We are doing pretty much the same thing there as we are in Libya.

 

For corporate subsidies/welfare, things like paying an industry that regularly posts record profits to do what they ARE doing anyway.... that's just silly. Even sillier is, paying farmers to NOT raise crops......... I am real curious who thought that one up. There are others, but, I am pretty beat, as it is the wee hours of the morning here. :D So, perhaps more on that one later.

 

For the military, let me bring up the V-22 Osprey again...... Over budget, by a factor of three...... Didn't meet the original design specs put forth by the military either. The project was shot at three times, and each time, due to political wrangling, it dodged the bullet.

 

If we get into a shooting war with one of the major powers, technology isn't going to matter. The major powers have nukes...... some of them would have a lot fewer qualms about using them than others...... and that would start a feces storm that would make all other wars look like kids in a playground. It may not start as a strategic nuclear exchange, but, it would eventually escalate there. If one side or the other saw that they were in serious danger of being defeated, they would have nothing left to lose by tossing out a selection of warheads. What really grinds my gears is, we are exporting all of our jobs, thus, a GREAT deal of money, to china. And what do they use that money for? Military development. One specific project I like the best is: A ballistic missile whose sole purpose is to seek out, and destroy US carrier groups. Nice huh? Lets make sure our enemies can afford to make the weapons to blow the crap out of us.

[Aurielius]

Aurielius, I am beginning to like you. :D

 

See, even though I do not consider myself even remotely republican, or democrat for that matter, I WILL admit that some of their ideas have merit, as do some of the dems. Trouble is, any idea associated with/to one of the parties, is automatically a 'bad idea' to the other party.

 

The fourth war is Yemen. We are doing pretty much the same thing there as we are in Libya.

 

For corporate subsidies/welfare, things like paying an industry that regularly posts record profits to do what they ARE doing anyway.... that's just silly. Even sillier is, paying farmers to NOT raise crops......... I am real curious who thought that one up. There are others, but, I am pretty beat, as it is the wee hours of the morning here. :D So, perhaps more on that one later.

 

For the military, let me bring up the V-22 Osprey again...... Over budget, by a factor of three...... Didn't meet the original design specs put forth by the military either. The project was shot at three times, and each time, due to political wrangling, it dodged the bullet.

 

If we get into a shooting war with one of the major powers, technology isn't going to matter. The major powers have nukes...... some of them would have a lot fewer qualms about using them than others...... and that would start a feces storm that would make all other wars look like kids in a playground. It may not start as a strategic nuclear exchange, but, it would eventually escalate there. If one side or the other saw that they were in serious danger of being defeated, they would have nothing left to lose by tossing out a selection of warheads. What really grinds my gears is, we are exporting all of our jobs, thus, a GREAT deal of money, to china. And what do they use that money for? Military development. One specific project I like the best is: A ballistic missile whose sole purpose is to seek out, and destroy US carrier groups. Nice huh? Lets make sure our enemies can afford to make the weapons to blow the crap out of us.

@HeyYou

I started with the idea that your original post would be some Liberal polemic but as I read your ideas I found myself in accord with most of them and by the end was developing a grudging respect for your position, so yeah I'm beginning to like you also. I am not a dyed in the wool deep right conservative but but on the moderate end of the spectrum. The fiscal ideas appeal to me but not the crazy far right ideological semi religious stuff, big government is not the answer but some government from the federal level is, there has to be a balance of state and federal power.

 

The Farm Subsidies are up for renewal again and the farmers claim that our low food prices are the beneficial result, that and the fact that small family farms would go under without them. OK if that is the actual case then we should only extend the subsidies to family not corporate farming which should shield the individuals but open the corporations to real global competition. We actually have a Bee's Wax subsidy extended from WW2 (when it was a vital part of high altitude oxygen masks) that is just plain silly. There should be an independent outside review of all the agricultural subsidies to see what is actually relevant and what is just a boondoggle.

 

As for the specter of a real shooting war, I really think that it is erroneous to assume that it would not be conventional. The false assumption that everything would be ballistically decided has been trotted out before and proven wrong. Though I admit to a certain bias in favor of Carrier Groups ( ret Navy Aviator), they do provide us with the only real deep water Naval superiority that is existent in the world. The Nimitz class carriers do have a classified system for defeating the current and projected anti ship missiles that are their primary danger. Carriers are the real projection of American power, the world is 3/4 water after all.

 

The Osprey program was never something that the military wanted, it was another of those 'bringing home the bacon' congressional ideas and I say that because my state (Pa.) was where it was cooked and served to the electorate. There were two version of the F-22 Raptor program which was one too many considering that integration of parts and maintenance is a key method of controlling cost within the military infrastructure. We do need the plane but not two versions of it.

 

I think that our bases overseas should come under review as to which ones are vital and which ones are hold overs from the cold war, Germany is a prime example of a country that does not need to be defended in the same manner as was priorly necessary. Either reduce or eliminate bases that do not really provide an essential logistical support for us. We can't get rid of them all but we don't need all of them either, some prepositioning of armored forces is necessary for fast reaction forces. We used to have a fleet of US built fast transports which could make up the difference, but we let them rot away (I'm in the shipping business and used to deal with them) now we rely on foreign owners..real bright .

Edited July 6, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

Naval Aviator? Way Cool! Thank You for your service. (US Air Force for me, was a cop.)

 

Any major conflict would certainly START as a conventional war, and sure, there are a great many factors that would come into play as to whether it went nuclear or not. Mostly, I suppose it depends on the scale of the war in question. There is also the possibility that it wouldn't even directly involve the US, if Russia, and China went at it...... and started tossing nukes, we may get dragged into it by default. Also, dropping a nuke on a carrier group is far different (from a certain perspective) than dropping a nuke no enemy soil. Sure, the various ships have defensive systems, but, they are also of limited range, and not 100% effective. A large enough warhead, detonated at high enough altitude, would do enough damage to render the carrier group useless for a considerable period of time, if not permanently...... And all it would take is one getting 'close enough' to take 'em out. (I am going to guess that you wouldn't exactly want to be launched from a highly irradiated deck.....) Granted, no one has the capability YET, but, it's coming..... and even the mere threat of such a weapon would alter our military strategy in areas within the weapons range.

 

Not that I expect WWIII anytime soon...... but, it is still a possibility that needs to be looked at. Currently, China could destroy us without even firing a shot. The simple words: "We are calling your loans due." would instantly bankrupt us. Fortunately, that is not really in the best interests of China at this point.........

 

Agreed on the farm subsidies. Taking a look at just what all is going on there would be a requirement. Same goes for military projects. It isn't something that would happen over night, but, it really needs to happen. A fair few government works projects could also stand a bit of oversight. (Think: Bridge to Nowhere.)

 

I find it highly amusing that you and I, while at first, apparently being at opposite ends of the spectrum, find that we agree on more than we disagree on. :D Now, if only our politicians could make the attempt at finding some common ground, and leaving party politics out of it. Not gonna hold my breath on that though.....

[Aurielius]

One of the real inequities that we do have is our income tax system, the right want to protect business from more taxes and the left want to tax the rich. I still think that a Flat Tax system would be fairer to the middle class and bring in the people that are using off shore havens and tax dodges .It would solve the overcomplicated filing that we have now (who among us actually computes their own business and personnel taxes anymore?) and bring in more revenue which the left wants and shrink federal bureaucracy which the right wants and make all our lives easier on April 15th which we all want. Just and idea to kick around. :whistling:

[HeyYou]

One of the real inequities that we do have is our income tax system, the right want to protect business from more taxes and the left want to tax the rich. I still think that a Flat Tax system would be fairer to the middle class and bring in the people that are using off shore havens and tax dodges .It would solve the overcomplicated filing that we have now (who among us actually computes their own business and personnel taxes anymore?) and bring in more revenue which the left wants and shrink federal bureaucracy which the right wants and make all our lives easier on April 15th which we all want. Just and idea to kick around. :whistling:

 

A flat tax would go a long way toward leveling the playing field. Getting rid of the IRS certainly wouldn't hurt anyones feelings either. (except maybe those that work there.....) Trouble is, as it stands now, there is a pretty large segment of the population that actually makes a profit on income taxes...... changing the system (for the better), to actually make things "fair", would annoy a fair few voters, and some folks in congress would not be re-elected... can't have that now can we?? So, I don't expect congress to get behind that particular idea. Ross Perot had a flat tax as part of his platform the first time he ran for president....... It is my belief, that had he not quit the race, and later re-joined, he might have stood a fair chance of getting elected. Oh well.