Jump to content

Menu

s/o what u.s. gov't programs would YOU cut?


Recommended Posts

I would cut all programs for people who are not in this country legally. I know that may not be a popular opinion, but education, medical care, food stamps, etc. would only be for those in this country legally. I would also propose laws come down hard on employers that hire illegal workers and drug dealers (and by hard, I mean that dealing drugs would be a death penalty crime). If there were no jobs, no free health care and no free education, and less incentive to sell drugs, we could also greatly reduce spending on border security.

 

Also, *many* federal programs should be done away with. State and local government should have much more control and responsibility for things like education.

 

I would do away with or greatly overhaul farm subsidies, the FDA, and the USDA (just watched "Food Inc." with DH last week).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should, or that I would, but I wonder if welfare programs were cut, would individuals, businesses, and churches step up and take care of the poor, sick, and needy? I know there are some who do, but I wonder if they'd be more inclined to do so if there was no other option. There was a time before food stamps and social security -- people stepped in and helped those who lost jobs or homes, and elderly relatives lived with their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should, or that I would, but I wonder if welfare programs were cut, would individuals, businesses, and churches step up and take care of the poor, sick, and needy? I know there are some who do, but I wonder if they'd be more inclined to do so if there was no other option. There was a time before food stamps and social security -- people stepped in and helped those who lost jobs or homes, and elderly relatives lived with their families.

 

As an extreme libertarian-ish, small and local government advocate, I think this consideration is paramount. I believe that local support activities (faith based or not) have decreased in proportion to the amount of government "help".

 

I believe that, eventually and after some time in adjusting, communities would develop the needed services. It would take some serious time, however, because that role has been handled by the government for so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with just about all that's been stated already.

 

Also, gimme that list of frivolous, government funded research projects. I'd love to put my red ink all over that!

 

I also tread lightly when I mention this, because I know among those that won't work we do find the worthy poor - but I think there needs to be a real tough set of circumstances under which folks can collect extended unemployment benefits. I come from the place of watching a family member collect it over the last year while being able-bodied, working other jobs for cash, and being well supported by a significant other. Disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should, or that I would, but I wonder if welfare programs were cut, would individuals, businesses, and churches step up and take care of the poor, sick, and needy? I know there are some who do, but I wonder if they'd be more inclined to do so if there was no other option. There was a time before food stamps and social security -- people stepped in and helped those who lost jobs or homes, and elderly relatives lived with their families.

 

:iagree: Also, it would be incentive for people who abuse welfare programs to actually do better for themselves. You know folks who really can work, but don't because they have found a way out of it.

 

IMO, welfare was well intended but the abuse of it has gone on for too long and now is too expensive for tax payers, not to mention the sense of entitlement it has instilled.

 

I think this also goes hand in hand with what a previous poster said about illegal citizens. I am not speaking of foreign citizens who are here legally, going to school and/or working and paying taxes. I am speaking of people who are here illegally straining our healthcare and educational systems and abusing our welfare/government charities.

 

Also, if I were in charge, I would lower taxes for everyone and get rid of government regulations on small businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would limit federal spending to only those specifically authorized by the US Constitution, and would strictly enforce the 10th amendment.

 

:iagree:

 

I would also do away with minimum wage and outlaw unions for federal employees. I would do away with the federal tax structure that we have and institute the fair tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

actually lets you tinker with the numbers until you balance the budget.

 

I actually found it way easier to balance than I thought!

 

Can't do it on iPad, but can't wait to tinker with it on the computer later!

 

Dept of education

Dept of homeland security (that is just stupid. That is the main purpose of having a military!)

CPS

 

To start with off the top of my head.

 

I would cut all programs for people who are not in this country legally. I know that may not be a popular opinion, but education, medical care, food stamps, etc. would only be for those in this country legally. I would also propose laws come down hard on employers that hire illegal workers and drug dealers (and by hard, I mean that dealing drugs would be a death penalty crime). If there were no jobs, no free health care and no free education, and less incentive to sell drugs, we could also greatly reduce spending on border security.

 

I would do away with or greatly overhaul farm subsidies, the FDA, and the USDA (just watched "Food Inc." with DH last week).

 

To me, death is reserved for murder offenses. And even then, I'm iffy on the system doing it justly. Otherwise I have no issue with your illegals opinion.

 

I'm not saying we should, or that I would, but I wonder if welfare programs were cut, would individuals, businesses, and churches step up and take care of the poor, sick, and needy? I know there are some who do, but I wonder if they'd be more inclined to do so if there was no other option. There was a time before food stamps and social security -- people stepped in and helped those who lost jobs or homes, and elderly relatives lived with their families.

 

Yes, there was a time before those things.

 

I time when a hell of a lot more people starved to death or froze to death.

A time when children were left at orphanages because their parent(s) couldn't provide for them.

 

I actually like your idea.

 

But there is a huge glaring problem with it.

 

Poverty tends to be a regional thing.

 

That side of town where the poor folks live. That city. That state. Sure the churches there try to do a lot for their area. But who is most likely to attend that church? The very same poor folks from that area. It's those who have nearly nothing trying to help those who actually have nothing.

 

Do surrounding areas, better off areas, try to help? Sure they do. But sadly it is often out of sight out of mind. And also some areas don't get much help because they are ill regarded or simply because they are small or quiet. And when times a hard, those better areas tighten their giving to those in their own yard.

 

None of this is a good or bad. It's just reality.

 

So on a state or national level, who should a govt help it's weakest citizens stand on their feet? Do we think it shouldn't? If so, what happens to those citizens? Are they completely written off at the govt level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should, or that I would, but I wonder if welfare programs were cut, would individuals, businesses, and churches step up and take care of the poor, sick, and needy? I know there are some who do, but I wonder if they'd be more inclined to do so if there was no other option. There was a time before food stamps and social security -- people stepped in and helped those who lost jobs or homes, and elderly relatives lived with their families.

 

Is one I would have my sights on too. I would requier 40 hr work week for all but the most handicapped people to recieve benefits. Obviously some are unable to do much productive work-but I bet most could do something. Of course child care would have to be available.... They could clean all public buildings, clean parks, sweep the streets, and anything else they have skills in and after the 40 hours are completed-you could get your check for the week. You would also have to pee in a cup weekly. If you are using anything-no $$$. I imagine that if they have to work for it anyway-many will not find being on welfare such a good deal.

 

I'm also all for not funding any benefits for illegals-other than a plane/bus...to deport them. I know this will be unpopular. My Mom is a legal immigrant and now a US citizen. I know how much people from other countries want to come here.

 

As was posted upthread-education decisions should be local-not federal.

 

I am not for defunding military-but we should definitely cut the pork. they should not pay more than I do for any regular stuff like I buy at Wal-Mart. some of those contracts I have seen reported on are insane such as the infamous $200 toilet seat from several years ago. This is true of any government agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to cut military spending on the war (as well as nation building in other countries), in addition to everything else that's been mentioned.

 

I would address the military spending in a "spend smarter" not "more" kind of way.

 

I would look at the military spending and audit the spending of military contractors more closely.

 

I would remove the ability to place anonymous riders on bills that spend billions of dollars on unwanted military planes without any sort of signature.

That isn't hyperbole...that happens.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is one I would have my sights on too. I would requier 40 hr work week for all but the most handicapped people to recieve benefits. Obviously some are unable to do much productive work-but I bet most could do something. Of course child care would have to be available.... They could clean all public buildings, clean parks, sweep the streets, and anything else they have skills in and after the 40 hours are completed-you could get your check for the week. You would also have to pee in a cup weekly. If you are using anything-no $$$. I imagine that if they have to work for it anyway-many will not find being on welfare such a good deal.

 

There are already work or training requirements for welfare, one doesn't just get free money someone has to work or be in school of some sort. Applicants are required to be citizens.

 

That wouldn't be welfare, those are jobs. People already have those jobs. Those are also things that people have to do who are assigned community service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federal Department of Education.

 

The Department of Commerce would see serious cuts.

 

The Department of Homeland Security - but an increase in FBI, CIA, and Federal Marshall's program, a net gain monetarily by reducing bureaucracy. For that matter, I'd eliminate a lot of bueaucratic positions in the ATF and the DEA and roll those agencies into the FBI. Honestly, what we need is one decent, streamlined law enforcement/intelligence community - they won't be perfet but, given our current situation, it's difficult to imagine it would be worse. We don't need a bunch of departments with their own personal agendas always vieing for their piece of the budget pie.

 

Dare I say it because I am a professional musician - The National Endowment for the Arts - I know, it hurts, it hurts, it hurts, but thev'e been a bit, nonesensical about how the've spent the taxpayers dollars as of late, and austerity hurts...we'll fund it when things get straightened around financially, and we'll have some checks and balances in there to make sure it is wisely spent.

 

Any part of the military budget spent on "nation building" and, though I don't think the region is yet stable, I'd probably be pulling the troops home, and especially the National Guard because we can't really take care of a domestic disaster properly anymore because we've sent too many of them to foreign soil...something they were never chartered for! But, I would actually increase the size of our army. BUT, congress people would not be able to stick several billions of dollars onto any piece of legislation so that their state can get naval destroyers that the Pentagon doesn't even want!!!!!!!! And, in order to accomodate an appropriately sized army and National Guard for a nation of this size, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A MILITARY PRESENCE IN SOME 150 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD! Whew, breath Faith, breath Faith...

 

NAFTA would be repealed and reasonable tariffs would be placed on imports just like we pay tariffs on our exports to foreign countries. I'd be leveling the playing field. What's that saying, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!"?

 

I'd ask the UN to leave New York or pay it's fair share. If you do some research, you will find that New York City absorbs an astronomical cost for having the UN occupy it's space. It's mind boggling actually and sooooo unfair to New Yorkers. Paris, London, Berlin, I don't care....someone else can take that financial hit for a while.

 

I would not eliminate the Department of Ag but I would seriously reign in it's little parade of abuses. This would include farm subsidies in which farmers are paid to "NOT" farm. Seriously, we'd all like to get paid for something like that but it's not viable to do this to try to keep crop prices to a certain level by eliminating competition. Let the chips fall. Farm or don't farm (and let me tell you, I am a big fan of the family farm), but you can't make that decision based on tax subsidized dollars.

 

I would move to privatize Social Security and especially any portion of the population that has twenty years or more of working ahead of them. They've got time to adjust. People are not motivated to save unless they see the need placed smack in front of their faces and the government is a poor investment...no bang for the buck, and when times are good, it's just tooo easy to dip into that money. Protect the citizen and put them back in charge of it. SS was supposed to be temporary fix during the Great Depression, not a permanent department.

 

The phone and the internet would get used a lot more instead of FLYING EVERYWHERE AT HUGE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS WHO CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO FLY ON JETBLUE OR FILL THEIR GAS TANKS!!!

 

The government would not own, nor would have bailed out, GM or Crysler.

 

I would actually increase the number of federal prosecutors and increase the budget for the Department of Justice because prosecuting scums like Enron, Anderson and Anderson, World Com, Chase Manhatten, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Madoff and friends, is important for the financial future of America. If enough of them get sentenced to life, it just might be a walk up call to the rest of the CEO/CFO's, etc. to NOT be criminals.

 

No one who has ever worked for a drug company could be the head of or sit on the board of the FDA! That's it....you've just worked yourself out of one political position. You can bet somebody from John's Hopkins would be my pick. I like John's Hopkins...they do a better job of being impartial, not that everyone is ever completely unbiased. They also cannot own stock in a drug company.

 

All federal politicians would be given half of what they currently get for operating their offices in D.C. and at home. They must economize with the rest of us. They do not get a pass because they think they are elite. If they need to draft volunteers to answer the phone and process mail, when good for them. It's about time you actually inspired enough faith in your constituents that they'd be willing to help you keep your office running even when it isn't get re-elected time.

 

I would release some of the oil from our federal reserves. Seriously, the government has a couple hundred years worth of oil, at current consumption levels. Honestly, let's lower gas prices to our people while they have to go through this world of hurting and decide that human enginuity being a pretty amazing thing, the internal combustion engine will be a dinosaur by the time we run out! Maybe that will make plastics manufacturers (currently 60% of all petroleum consumption in this country is plastic manufacturing) and car companies get serious about their research. You'd be surprised how fast technology forges ahead when the big players are FORCED.

 

And though it would not be popular on any front, I'd eliminate the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, and I'd privatize the Appalacian Regional Commission (which has become very bloated) and the Tennessee Valley Authority which again, has an over bloated budget for what it does and can probably be operated privately for far less cost.

 

Additionally, the following little lesser known budgets would see the axe:

 

 

  • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, $3 million
  • Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, $3 million
  • Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad, $200,000
  • Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Appraisal Subcommittee, $2 million
  • Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, $11 million
  • Japan-United States Friendship Commission, $2 million
  • JFK Assassination Records Review Board, $1 million
  • Marine Mammal Commission, $1 million
  • National Capital Planning Commission, $5 million
  • National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, $1 million
  • National Education Goals Panel, $1 million
  • Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, $40 million
  • Office of Government Ethics, $8 million
  • Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, $27 million
  • Ounce of Prevention Council, $1 million
  • State Justice Institute, $13 million
  • United States Institute of Peace, $12 million

Okay, bring on the flames. I am not expecting to be a "beloved " president! LOL

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should, or that I would, but I wonder if welfare programs were cut, would individuals, businesses, and churches step up and take care of the poor, sick, and needy? I know there are some who do, but I wonder if they'd be more inclined to do so if there was no other option. There was a time before food stamps and social security -- people stepped in and helped those who lost jobs or homes, and elderly relatives lived with their families.

I know people who grew up in abject poverty before those problems were in place - my grandmother grew up wearing chicken feed sacks b/c her mother was a widow with seven children. Relatives helped out as they could and they were in church, but it wasn't enough. Sometimes a person in their town brought them eggs and that was the extent of the charity they received. There was far more malnutrition before WIC/food stamps was established. I also know many families today (hard-working families) who would not have food for their families and be able to pay their other bills without those programs. I would not cut them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a boat load. That's another aspect to cutting things left and right. Where do all of these employees go? There have to be jobs for people. Even if to some extent we can live without some of them.

 

I am always reminded of that part of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where there is the ship full of people who made documenteries, hairdressers, telephone cleaners and then the actual scientists, medical types and other essential jobs were "on the other ship" (didn't actually leave) Then the planet was wiped out by a disease from a dirty telephone. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know people who grew up in abject poverty before those problems were in place - my grandmother grew up wearing chicken feed sacks b/c her mother was a widow with seven children. Relatives helped out as they could and they were in church, but it wasn't enough. Sometimes a person in their town brought them eggs and that was the extent of the charity they received. There was far more malnutrition before WIC/food stamps was established. I also know many families today (hard-working families) who would not have food for their families and be able to pay their other bills without those programs. I would not cut them.

 

My grandfather and his siblings grew up picking cotton. They say childhood is a modern invention. I cannot imagine. :(

 

I wouldn't cut those sort of things either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*IF* I were to ever go back to the US and by some bizarro world twist of fate I could get whatever I wanted done to fix the economy without the bureaucracy interferring, I would:

Cut all foreign military operations.

Reduce military to border and internal operations only.

Trim government bureacracy to a bare bones staff.

Outlaw lobbyists -- all of them.

Enact a huge series of incentives to bring manufacturing back to the country.

 

That last one -- when I was growing up, it was so easy to find products of all varieties "Made in the USA." There were even commercials. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers "Look for the union label..." Since I'd get rid of about 3/4ths or more of military personnel, bringing back jobs would be the biggest step toward providing employment for citizens.

 

 

FWIW, if I were Supreme Goddess of Canada, I'd do exactly the same things.

Edited by Audrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

actually lets you tinker with the numbers until you balance the budget.

 

I actually found it way easier to balance than I thought!

 

 

But balancing the budget isn't going to touch the debt load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already work or training requirements for welfare, one doesn't just get free money someone has to work or be in school of some sort. Applicants are required to be citizens.

 

That wouldn't be welfare, those are jobs. People already have those jobs. Those are also things that people have to do who are assigned community service.

 

I think having to work should be for most benefits: food, housing, welfare... Yes it would be a job-they need to learn how to show up at one. If we are trying to save money (I thought that was the point of the op), I would have the people on the public dole do them instead of paying someone a bunch to do it. Frankly, not all areas are kept all that nice and clean -some extra attention would be nice along the roadside and in the parks here. I bet some charities would love some manpower now and again as well. The point is that I think that not too much of anyone should get freebies-they should have to do some meaningful work to get paid-just like me and mine. Frankly, if someone is unwilling (note I said unwilling not physically incapable) to show up and work for their assistance-they don't want/need it bad enough. People that owe some debt to society should continue to do community service too.

 

I was raised that nobody owes me anything. I am not entitled to being given anything. If I wanted something I had to work for it. That mindset is lacking in more folks than I like now and days and it makes me sad. What is wrong for having to work for what you get? I understand anyone can fall on hard times-us included. I can assure you DH and I would do anything in our power to care for ourselves and our kids. Having grown up on farms, both he and I have done more unsavory jobs than you can imagine (unless you were too ;0) and would do so again to keep food on the table. Any assistance would be deemed as embarassing and temporary-not some badge of honor or lifestyle like some people I know IRL. So, It is not that I don't know people can fall on hard times and need assistance that chaps me. It is the idea that it is owed them that does. There is no reason not to work for it-barring inability and I'm not too liberal as far as inability goes. If you can walk, talk and breathe-you can likely do something;0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, just what this board needed - another thread for people to rant about how awful and undeserving Those Other People are.

 

Many of the posters to this thread seem to be unaware of how tiny a proportion of the federal budget is devoted to poverty relief. And almost everyone seems to be unaware of the welfare reform enacted during the Clinton Administration.

 

There are strict limits on welfare, including work requirements, no extra benefits for babies born on welfare, and total lifetime limits. There have been for more than 15 years. And still we get post after post about welfare as a lifestyle, generation upon generation on welfare, people having babies to get more welfare, etc. It's like no one ever saw the need to update the rhetoric from the 1980s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you, FaithManor!

 

The Federal Department of Education.

 

The Department of Commerce would see serious cuts.

 

The Department of Homeland Security - but an increase in FBI, CIA, and Federal Marshall's program, a net gain monetarily by reducing bureaucracy. For that matter, I'd eliminate a lot of bueaucratic positions in the ATF and the DEA and roll those agencies into the FBI. Honestly, what we need is one decent, streamlined law enforcement/intelligence community - they won't be perfet but, given our current situation, it's difficult to imagine it would be worse. We don't need a bunch of departments with their own personal agendas always vieing for their piece of the budget pie.

 

Dare I say it because I am a professional musician - The National Endowment for the Arts - I know, it hurts, it hurts, it hurts, but thev'e been a bit, nonesensical about how the've spent the taxpayers dollars as of late, and austerity hurts...we'll fund it when things get straightened around financially, and we'll have some checks and balances in there to make sure it is wisely spent.

 

Any part of the military budget spent on "nation building" and, though I don't think the region is yet stable, I'd probably be pulling the troops home, and especially the National Guard because we can't really take care of a domestic disaster properly anymore because we've sent too many of them to foreign soil...something they were never chartered for! But, I would actually increase the size of our army. BUT, congress people would not be able to stick several billions of dollars onto any piece of legislation so that their state can get naval destroyers that the Pentagon doesn't even want!!!!!!!! And, in order to accomodate an appropriately sized army and National Guard for a nation of this size, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A MILITARY PRESENCE IN SOME 150 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD! Whew, breath Faith, breath Faith...

 

NAFTA would be repealed and reasonable tariffs would be placed on imports just like we pay tariffs on our exports to foreign countries. I'd be leveling the playing field. What's that saying, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!"?

 

I'd ask the UN to leave New York or pay it's fair share. If you do some research, you will find that New York City absorbs an astronomical cost for having the UN occupy it's space. It's mind boggling actually and sooooo unfair to New Yorkers. Paris, London, Berlin, I don't care....someone else can take that financial hit for a while.

 

I would not eliminate the Department of Ag but I would seriously reign in it's little parade of abuses. This would include farm subsidies in which farmers are paid to "NOT" farm. Seriously, we'd all like to get paid for something like that but it's not viable to do this to try to keep crop prices to a certain level by eliminating competition. Let the chips fall. Farm or don't farm (and let me tell you, I am a big fan of the family farm), but you can't make that decision based on tax subsidized dollars.

 

I would move to privatize Social Security and especially any portion of the population that has twenty years or more of working ahead of them. They've got time to adjust. People are not motivated to save unless they see the need placed smack in front of their faces and the government is a poor investment...no bang for the buck, and when times are good, it's just tooo easy to dip into that money. Protect the citizen and put them back in charge of it. SS was supposed to be temporary fix during the Great Depression, not a permanent department.

 

The phone and the internet would get used a lot more instead of FLYING EVERYWHERE AT HUGE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS WHO CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO FLY ON JETBLUE OR FILL THEIR GAS TANKS!!!

 

The government would not own, nor would have bailed out, GM or Crysler.

 

I would actually increase the number of federal prosecutors and increase the budget for the Department of Justice because prosecuting scums like Enron, Anderson and Anderson, World Com, Chase Manhatten, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Madoff and friends, is important for the financial future of America. If enough of them get sentenced to life, it just might be a walk up call to the rest of the CEO/CFO's, etc. to NOT be criminals.

 

No one who has ever worked for a drug company could be the head of or sit on the board of the FDA! That's it....you've just worked yourself out of one political position. You can bet somebody from John's Hopkins would be my pick. I like John's Hopkins...they do a better job of being impartial, not that everyone is ever completely unbiased. They also cannot own stock in a drug company.

 

All federal politicians would be given half of what they currently get for operating their offices in D.C. and at home. They must economize with the rest of us. They do not get a pass because they think they are elite. If they need to draft volunteers to answer the phone and process mail, when good for them. It's about time you actually inspired enough faith in your constituents that they'd be willing to help you keep your office running even when it isn't get re-elected time.

 

I would release some of the oil from our federal reserves. Seriously, the government has a couple hundred years worth of oil, at current consumption levels. Honestly, let's lower gas prices to our people while they have to go through this world of hurting and decide that human enginuity being a pretty amazing thing, the internal combustion engine will be a dinosaur by the time we run out! Maybe that will make plastics manufacturers (currently 60% of all petroleum consumption in this country is plastic manufacturing) and car companies get serious about their research. You'd be surprised how fast technology forges ahead when the big players are FORCED.

 

And though it would not be popular on any front, I'd eliminate the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, and I'd privatize the Appalacian Regional Commission (which has become very bloated) and the Tennessee Valley Authority which again, has an over bloated budget for what it does and can probably be operated privately for far less cost.

 

Additionally, the following little lesser known budgets would see the axe:

 

 

  • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, $3 million
  • Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, $3 million
  • Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad, $200,000
  • Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Appraisal Subcommittee, $2 million
  • Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, $11 million
  • Japan-United States Friendship Commission, $2 million
  • JFK Assassination Records Review Board, $1 million
  • Marine Mammal Commission, $1 million
  • National Capital Planning Commission, $5 million
  • National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, $1 million
  • National Education Goals Panel, $1 million
  • Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, $40 million
  • Office of Government Ethics, $8 million
  • Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, $27 million
  • Ounce of Prevention Council, $1 million
  • State Justice Institute, $13 million
  • United States Institute of Peace, $12 million

Okay, bring on the flames. I am not expecting to be a "beloved " president! LOL

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think having to work should be for most benefits: food, housing, welfare... Yes it would be a job-they need to learn how to show up at one. If we are trying to save money (I thought that was the point of the op), I would have the people on the public dole do them instead of paying someone a bunch to do it. Frankly, not all areas are kept all that nice and clean -some extra attention would be nice along the roadside and in the parks here. I bet some charities would love some manpower now and again as well. The point is that I think that not too much of anyone should get freebies-they should have to do some meaningful work to get paid-just like me and mine. Frankly, if someone is unwilling (note I said unwilling not physically incapable) to show up and work for their assistance-they don't want/need it bad enough. People that owe some debt to society should continue to do community service too.

 

I was raised that nobody owes me anything. I am not entitled to being given anything. If I wanted something I had to work for it. That mindset is lacking in more folks than I like now and days and it makes me sad. What is wrong for having to work for what you get? I understand anyone can fall on hard times-us included. I can assure you DH and I would do anything in our power to care for ourselves and our kids. Having grown up on farms, both he and I have done more unsavory jobs than you can imagine (unless you were too ;0) and would do so again to keep food on the table. Any assistance would be deemed as embarassing and temporary-not some badge of honor or lifestyle like some people I know IRL. So, It is not that I don't know people can fall on hard times and need assistance that chaps me. It is the idea that it is owed them that does. There is no reason not to work for it-barring inability and I'm not too liberal as far as inability goes. If you can walk, talk and breathe-you can likely do something;0)

 

There are already work/training requirements for welfare. No one is laying around getting free money for years. That isn't how it works and if someone is telling you that then they are ill informed.

 

Government service jobs pay about 8.00 an hour. Are you suggesting that people who are poor be paid even less than that?

 

You are essentially suggesting slavery for food and shelter.

 

The coal companies did that. That is where labor unions really took off in this country.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandfather and his siblings grew up picking cotton. They say childhood is a modern invention. I cannot imagine. :(

 

I wouldn't cut those sort of things either.

 

My parents were the children of sharecroppers. My mother remembered winters without shoes. My dad remembers feeling terrible because he thought everyone at the table could have two boiled eggs for breakfast and it wasn't until after his younger brother came to the table that he realized he ate his bothers egg. His dad went without any breakfast so his younger bother could have an egg. My dad is over 70 and not anywhere near a softy and that memory still makes him feel shame.

 

for fun I would cut all of the congress'/senate healthcare. I want to see Boehner pull $ out of his pocket in the amount of 50 dollar copays and have his ____denied. And I want to see him have to get on the phone with lawyers trying to collect medical debt...

 

Oh yeah.:iagree: I chaps me big time that they expound all the virtues of national healthcare and Medicare, but they sure as hell won't risk being on the same system as the rest of us.:glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is one I would have my sights on too. I would requier 40 hr work week for all but the most handicapped people to recieve benefits. Obviously some are unable to do much productive work-but I bet most could do something. Of course child care would have to be available.... They could clean all public buildings, clean parks, sweep the streets, and anything else they have skills in and after the 40 hours are completed-you could get your check for the week.

 

OK - and how will you pay ME to hover and make sure my now adult son with autism actually stays on task for those 40 hours???? Or another adult person trained to deal with his disability??? Bearing in mind that he can not be left by himself for an extended period of time, so I can not work since I am primary caregiver....

 

Sigh. I LIKE your idea - it is just not that feasible w/o huge amounts of funding to SUPPORT the disabled so they can work. Which Illinois certainly does not have :-(

Edited by JFSinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle with the issue of how much the government should help others -- especially those who REALLY may not be able to help themselves -- the elderly, disabled, victims of horrible abuse, etc.

 

My son has Down syndrome. As he is a child, I accept responsibility for him and his expenses. Though he is eligible for Medicaid, we keep him on our private insurance and pay for all that we can for him. We are saving to meet with a lawyer to have a special trust set up for him to cover his future expenses, similar to the college fund we have for our daughters.

 

I hope that he will grow and live in some level of independence. But if something happens to me and my husband, I don't know if my other children will be able to care for him. What, then? Will there be a group home for him? Will there be a social worker available to help him?

 

No one wants to pay for another's expenses if that person is undeserving. The question, however, is what defines "help" and what defines "deserving." This is hard, and I truly, truly hope the leaders of our country find a way to cut the crazy spending that is going on, while still considering "the least of these" among us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, just what this board needed - another thread for people to rant about how awful and undeserving Those Other People are.

 

Many of the posters to this thread seem to be unaware of how tiny a proportion of the federal budget is devoted to poverty relief. And almost everyone seems to be unaware of the welfare reform enacted during the Clinton Administration.

 

There are strict limits on welfare, including work requirements, no extra benefits for babies born on welfare, and total lifetime limits. There have been for more than 15 years. And still we get post after post about welfare as a lifestyle, generation upon generation on welfare, people having babies to get more welfare, etc. It's like no one ever saw the need to update the rhetoric from the 1980s.

 

:iagree:

 

The assumption that getting benefits = not working amazes me. I was working 2 very low paying, nasty jobs when we qualified (food stamps). I don't assume I am "alone" or one of the rare, or few ones. I tend to assume that the abuse of the system is rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:

 

The assumption that getting benefits = not working amazes me. I was working 2 very low paying, nasty jobs when we qualified (food stamps). I don't assume I am "alone" or one of the rare, or few ones. I tend to assume that the abuse of the system is rare.

 

I am sorry if you were hurt.:(

 

 

I would recommend supplemental reading to any opinion based news programs.

 

I don't watch those sort of programs anymore and I am so much calmer and better informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivka, I understand your anger, I really do and you will note that my laundry lists of cuts did not really hit poverty programs at all. I know that's a hot button issue.

 

But, as much as I HATE POVERTY and have serious compassion for those in need, which dh do put into practice we have personally paid on fuel oil bills for neighbors, taken groceries to families, bought winter coats for children that needed them, etc. I am not a hypocrite here, we must face the facts that our government for the last 50 years has been completely corrupt and dishonest and it has sold us down the river. The interest on the national debt is $100,000.00 per tax payer. That's annual interest. The government is borrowing money in order to operate or face closing down at current spending levels. The unfortunate reality of a bankrupt government is more poverty. That is the ROTTEN, SUCKY, DEPRAVED, SICK, TWISTED, SCUMMY, DIRTY reality of our current situation.

 

I am not knocking a single person who gets government aid...so many people are hurting. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prevent this from getting worse. The government has to become fiscally responsible and it will do it our backs because they've passed the point of no return.

 

But, if NAFTA is repealed and tariffs are brought into place, that is going to level the playing field quite a bit and some jobs will move home where they belong. And by tariffs, I mean that American car companies, American computer companies, etc. will pay tariffs to the American government to import their products back to the U.S. If we got this legislation passed, this would add a tidy sum of money to the cost of producing items overseas making many things cheaper to produce here as, NO TARIFFS! One just has to learn to speak the language of big business...hit their bottom line!

 

As for the U.N., I should have clarified that I wasn't just addressing what it costs NYC to host the U.N. but I was talking about a much higher cost. There have been several investigative reports and audits that show that "diplomatic immunity" is really hurting the state of NY in ways that aren't necessarily related to money but should make us outraged. Spying and espionage is one (which hurts everyone) but that's just not even half as bad as the rapes and murders that go unprosecuted because of "diplomatic immunity" let alone the parking fines and utility bills that go unpaid. Oh, and if you are the electric company and decide that you want to turn off the electricity of some diplomat because he has run up a $12,000.00 bill. Think again. You can't do that. They are protected from any civil actions. That's why I want them out!

 

Literally, according to the UN charter, as long as they are on UN soil, in their UN cars, or in their UN houses, they do not have to follow and cannot be prosecuted for violations of our laws and many of them take extreme advantage of this.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't receive those benefits legally though. I'm not saying no illegal residents receive benefits, but it is already not legal.

 

Even when I filed for my fiance (now husband) to come here I had to sign documents and prove that I could financially support him until he was a legal resident. He was not allowed to receive any services. They could come after me if he needed any. And there are some benefits he still cannot receive as a legal resident (don't ask me which benefits those are, I'm not even sure, that is just what it says on the i-864).

 

This is my understanding also and I don't know why it isn't enforced. :001_huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dept of Ed.

EPA

All "czars"

IRS - replace the income tax with the fair tax (national sales tax)

Move social security toward privatization.

Medicare and medicaid overhauled to be financially stable

Repeal Obamacare.

Secure the borders and eliminate "birthright citizenship"

Reduce benefits for congress and require term limits.

 

Drastic limitations upon the size and power of: The Federal Reserve, the FDA, Dept of Ag, Dept of HHS, our support for the UN, Dept of Energy and probably lots of others.

 

Eliminate "nation building" and pork from our military, but raise pay, especially for enlisted personnel.

 

In order to create jobs and create wealth:

Also eliminate the death/inheritance tax completely and permanently.

Drop the business tax rate by at least half.

Eliminate capital gains taxes forever.

Encourage building of new refineries and new energy production of all kinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, just what this board needed - another thread for people to rant about how awful and undeserving Those Other People are.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I can't possibly imagine how you could deal with the budget long-term without limiting Social Security and Medicare. The most obvious way would be a means test. But then, of course, those programs become for Those Other People, and that's the end of that. So presumably it's going to have to be an increase in the qualifying age, which sucks for people who do manual labor or spend their working life on their feet.

 

What I really fret about is how these state governments are going to cope with their longterm pension/health plans that are now completely unsustainable.

Edited by JennyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dare I say it because I am a professional musician - The National Endowment for the Arts - I know, it hurts, it hurts, it hurts, but thev'e been a bit, nonesensical about how the've spent the taxpayers dollars as of late, and austerity hurts...we'll fund it when things get straightened around financially, and we'll have some checks and balances in there to make sure it is wisely spent.

 

:iagree: As a professionally-trained musician (married to a professional musician), I heartily agree. Sad, but true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I humbly suggest that those posting here take a look at how the federal budget breaks down?

 

Wikipedia has a quick-and-dirty here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

 

The thing is: you could get rid of every single "poor person" program and not make too big of a dent. The real money is in "old people" programs: social security and medicare.

 

We can probably avoid a nasty fight about who does or does not care about the poor by acknowledging that fact and moving on from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a boat load. That's another aspect to cutting things left and right. Where do all of these employees go? There have to be jobs for people. Even if to some extent we can live without some of them.

 

Something very serious to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivka, I understand your anger, I really do and you will note that my laundry lists of cuts did not really hit poverty programs at all. I know that's a hot button issue.

 

But, as much as I HATE POVERTY and have serious compassion for those in need, which dh do put into practice we have personally paid on fuel oil bills for neighbors, taken groceries to families, bought winter coats for children that needed them, etc. I am not a hypocrite here, we must face the facts that our government for the last 50 years has been completely corrupt and dishonest and it has sold us down the river. The interest on the national debt is $100,000.00 per tax payer. That's annual interest. The government is borrowing money in order to operate or face closing down at current spending levels. The unfortunate reality of a bankrupt government is more poverty. That is the ROTTEN, SUCKY, DEPRAVED, SICK, TWISTED, SCUMMY, DIRTY reality of our current situation.

 

I am not knocking a single person who gets government aid...so many people are hurting. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prevent this from getting worse. The government has to become fiscally responsible and it will do it our backs because they've passed the point of no return.

 

But, if NAFTA is repealed and tariffs are brought into place, that is going to level the playing field quite a bit and some jobs will move home where they belong. And by tariffs, I mean that American car companies, American computer companies, etc. will pay tariffs to the American government to import their products back to the U.S. If we got this legislation passed, this would add a tidy sum of money to the cost of producing items overseas making many things cheaper to produce here as, NO TARIFFS! One just has to learn to speak the language of big business...hit their bottom line!

 

 

 

I do think getting rid of NAFTA would help as well as eliminating tax cuts for corperations who out source jobs overseas.

 

 

 

 

As for the U.N., I should have clarified that I wasn't just addressing what it costs NYC to host the U.N. but I was talking about a much higher cost. There have been several investigative reports and audits that show that "diplomatic immunity" is really hurting the state of NY in ways that aren't necessarily related to money but should make us outraged. Spying and espionage is one (which hurts everyone) but that's just not even half as bad as the rapes and murders that go unprosecuted because of "diplomatic immunity" let alone the parking fines and utility bills that go unpaid. Oh, and if you are the electric company and decide that you want to turn off the electricity of some diplomat because he has run up a $12,000.00 bill. Think again. You can't do that. They are protected from any civil actions. That's why I want them out!

 

Literally, according to the UN charter, as long as they are on UN soil, in their UN cars, or in their UN houses, they do not have to follow and cannot be prosecuted for violations of our laws and many of them take extreme advantage of this.

 

Faith

 

Thanks for the additional information. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would address the military spending in a "spend smarter" not "more" kind of way.

 

I would look at the military spending and audit the spending of military contractors more closely.

 

I would remove the ability to place anonymous riders on bills that spend billions of dollars on unwanted military planes without any sort of signature.

That isn't hyperbole...that happens.

 

:iagree: Dh has had to redo numerous orders for computers because he didn't spend enough. He's a thrifty guy and always finds the best, cheapest way to do things. That is not acceptable in the Army apparently and that is on a very small scale. I can't imagine the waste higher up.

 

Also - contractors. We have great friends who are working for a contractor now. They are making hundreds of thousands a year doing *the exact same thing* a private in the Army does. What? Where is that a cost effiecient use of our defense budget????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real money is in "old people" programs: social security and medicare.

 

Social security should be there, but it isn't. The government spent it. We could retire on what we've paid in over the years, especially if we had had an opportunity to invest it.

 

Mind you, we paid our full share as self-employed people. Those who have been employed can count on their employer's share having been counted as part of their wages when the amount of their wages were determined. So everyone has paid in the full amount, whether they were self-employed or not, IMO.

Edited by RoughCollie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dept of Education. Why do we need state depts of education, local depts of education AND the US dept of education?

 

This. And term limits in Congress with meager salaries. If you want to serve, you serve - you don't get a lifetime seat and become a millionaire off the backs of taxpayers - ie because of your position you get kickbacks from every which way.

 

I'd cut funding to stupid research projects too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, just what this board needed - another thread for people to rant about how awful and undeserving Those Other People are.

 

Many of the posters to this thread seem to be unaware of how tiny a proportion of the federal budget is devoted to poverty relief. And almost everyone seems to be unaware of the welfare reform enacted during the Clinton Administration.

 

There are strict limits on welfare, including work requirements, no extra benefits for babies born on welfare, and total lifetime limits. There have been for more than 15 years. And still we get post after post about welfare as a lifestyle, generation upon generation on welfare, people having babies to get more welfare, etc. It's like no one ever saw the need to update the rhetoric from the 1980s.

 

Yup. I agree with you. Very frustrating and NOT why I started this thread :(

 

I'd limit disability SSI to people who are truly unable to work because of a physical or mental disability. And no, being a drug addict doesn't count (are drug addicts on SSI just an urban legend??).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...