Kerry is another millionair who just.....

Who are you referring to?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd like to see them CUT spending to all programs that are duplicates of each other. We have so many governmental agencies working out there that they never know what the other one is doing. Streamling what we have, CUT JOBS, would be a good way to start. Like in any business if it doesn't do what it is supposed to then dissolve it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the opposite is happening, the organizations that you are describing is the defence, and intelligence agencies. They suck up most of the Federal budget their share of that budget is increasing beyond belief. By the end of this decade your military is expected to suck $1 trillion per annum. Where is that money going to come from? From your wallet that's where, you in the long term will suffer greatly. Also let's face facts here, gov't spending before Bush was tame! The budget surplus showed as such, it was the defence budget and the tax cut that created this problem. To shift the burden of social programs to the individual would create a social collapse in the US.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, here are the largest duplicated government programs: Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines. Cut jobs there. At least they wouldn't grow as fast with Kerry, while he unwinds Bush's oil grab.

 

Actually, this is a bad idea. One way or another, the citizens pay for a certain number of services. Laying off jobs which can be handled by private industry results in more overhead (in theory). Streamlining is very expensive and difficult. Any lay-off large enough to save a signifigant amount of money in the short-term will cause drastic social problems.

We don't have as many duplicate programs as people tend to think.

 

Either way more taxes less taxes I still dont have any money.

You all can drop to my level. White trash all the way.

 

I think you could cut either the subsidies paid to peanut farmers or the programs that find uses for surplus peanuts. Likely lots of stuff like that is still going on. Bound to happen when a 4-million-person company never lays anyone off. The military is the best place to cut first. Well, after that cockamamie humans-on-Mars plan; millions monthly are probably already being spent on that.

 

There are duplicate agencies also that are doing the same exact thing that need to be consoladated. There are many agencies that are created that do absolutly nothing but waste timne and money. Let an efficancy expert examine all the different agencies and see what they come up with to streamline what the government has. The constitution allows for a department of defense and national guard but not a department of energy and other agencies that have been established in order to BLOAT the government with more people to ensure it will have all the votes it needs to feed itself. The government is very top heavy and gets heavier with each administration, just in different ways. The Republicans BLOAT the military while the Democrates BLOAT the other agencies.

 

The government is very top heavy and gets heavier with each administration, just in different ways. The Republicans BLOAT the military while the Democrates BLOAT the other agencies.

Actually gov't consumption of the GDP had been going down before Bush. There was a trend over the last 30 years where less and less gov't was popular:

Expenditure - Government consumption

United States:
1970-18.0
1975- 18.0
1980-17.0
1985-18.0
1990-17.0
1995-15.0
2000-14.0
2001-15.1

As you can plainly see the gov't expenditure greatly decreased under Clinton b.c of the peace dividend and non-military programs did not suck as much as you would think. Now with a $400 billion military sucking up about half of the budget, the rest of the programs budgets will grow slower then inflation. Also gov't consumption of GDP now is very high I am not sure how high. Any gains made in Clinton’s era are totally goners. It makes no sense to me how a person can support tax cuts, yet complain about excessive gov't spending. When the person he supports (BUSH) is doing both!

 

Where in the Consstitution does it call for a Department of Energy, or of State Or of Transportation? There's many things that have been added to the governments role that aren't allowed for by the Constitution that I could find. Why is there so many agencies and more and more people staffing them when they aren't needed according to thr Constitution?

 

Cosmic back when the constitution was drafted the US did not have an energy system, she did not have highways, and she did not even reach all the way past the Appalachians. Using your logic the US shouldn't even own anything past those mountains, and I assume you drive on cement roads. If you enjoy these socialist accomplishments then I do suggest that you don’t complain. If you don’t then I assume you would not complain when you pay for cement roads all by yourself. Defense of course should be funded we aren't saying otherwise. What we are saying is that if you like to complain about budgetary redundancy then don't look at the social programs, the defense budget the largest redundancy of them all. Welcome to 2004, or 1924 for that case.

 

C'mon cosmic. You think a 3-page document is going to cover everything the US needs? The Constitution is just the foundation of law; it excludes the details, of which there are rooms-full. The DOE & DOT may have waste within them but certainly without them your life would be worse. If you disagree, you can escape the system by moving to a hippie beach in Hawaii. Those people pay no taxes but they're on their own for energy, roads etc.

 

cosmic, do you know what the constitution is? It defines who gets to make what decisions, and the formations of agencies within each branch is well within the rights defined by the constitution. A constitution doesn’t bother itself with every little thing, it talks about how the government is to be run, its not going to define if turning right on red is acceptable.

 

are you talking about rich politicians or lobbists for the rich? My problem with most peoples' view of taxes, is that we all need taxes for government to use to build infrastructure, pay for fire services, police, roads, etc... And it seems that nobody wants to pay for it, or they want somebody else to.
Tell us Mr. Richman, how do you propose we build & maintain these services, etc.? What would be the optimum level of services & tax rates? Should welfare, Medi-Care, SSI, unemployment, & Social Security be cut or eliminated? Oh, and BTW, don't tell us "to eat cake".

Kerry wants to repeal the part that goes to people that earn more than $200,000, I take it you earn that very, very middle-class amount? Good for you. BTW, the money from you & your rich buddies is supposed to go for healthcare for the working poor, etc. Most people vote for people that would never tell them the truth anyway, look Nixon, Reagan, Clinton & Baby Bush made it, so your point is?

 

We are doomed, that is my point.

 

If everyone continues to only be educated to your level, then yes, yes we are.

It's sad when people who don't even live in this country know more about how it works than you.

 

We are doomed, that is my point.

Do explain your thesis on how the US is doomed, if the US keeps these tax cuts without cutting spending the US doomed.

 

Im thinking that Kerry and Chairman Mao were really good friends.

 

Sounds like something a Republican would say...unsubstantiated.