Thoughts on this budget idea?

[WhtEdge]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/bush.spending.ap/index.html

Without knowing more details about it, it kinda makes me nervous. I agree with cutting the budget but from what areas? The dept and spending it out of hand. Hopefully the money will get redirected in the best possible manner. A 2.5 trillion budget for 2006? WTF? Why on Earth is it that high? Hopefully our economy will get better as well.

[WhtEdge]

19 views and no replies. I thought for sure some of you would reply on this one.

[exlude]

From what is seen in that article, it doesn't seem like any great ideas are being thrown out. More of stuff that makes you go, "no shit". I think some time and money needs to be spent reorganizing defense spending. We could cut spending without cutting supplies and pay just by auditing it.

[Toolman]

maybe the people that run the government shouldnt get paid if this BS continues..

[WhtEdge]

maybe the people that run the government shouldnt get paid if this BS continues..
no kidding...
This numbnut better start making some plans that work instead of digging a deeper hole for the US.

[Sgt Beavis]

'bout damn time they cut spending. Maybe I can start calling them Republicans again. BIG MAYBE.

[AL P]

IMO the only logical and sane way to do things would be to not increase the budget AT ALL or even cut spending by 1% across the board. The old people who get social security would be pissed (cue the violins) as well as a lot of other groups who get government handouts.

I love the quote in there about the government providing "services" to people. What services? From the time I rolled out of bed this morning until this moment I can't think of one government "service" besides roadways that I have needed. I can think of plenty that I don't need though and plenty of ones that money is wasted on.

[WhtEdge]

IMO the only logical and sane way to do things would be to not increase the budget AT ALL or even cut spending by 1% across the board. The old people who get social security would be pissed (cue the violins) as well as a lot of other groups who get government handouts.

I love the quote in there about the government providing "services" to people. What services? From the time I rolled out of bed this morning until this moment I can't think of one government "service" besides roadways that I have needed. I can think of plenty that I don't need though and plenty of ones that money is wasted on.
So, any ideas of why this admin. is doing this? Makes no sense to me at all. Sounds like a deeper hole to put the US in.

[exlude]

IMO the only logical and sane way to do things would be to not increase the budget AT ALL or even cut spending by 1% across the board. The old people who get social security would be pissed (cue the violins) as well as a lot of other groups who get government handouts.

I love the quote in there about the government providing "services" to people. What services? From the time I rolled out of bed this morning until this moment I can't think of one government "service" besides roadways that I have needed. I can think of plenty that I don't need though and plenty of ones that money is wasted on.

Food, water, electricity...all subsidized to an extent.

[AL P]

Food, water, electricity...all subsidized to an extent.

Subsidized and regulated, not provided by the federal government. The effectiveness of both of those actions is also highly debateable. The function of the federal government should be to protect the country and manage foreign relations and trade. Anything beyond that is horseshit. Specifically, that means the feds shouldn't be in the business of retirement (social security), delivering mail, health care or any of that other crap. All that shit should be privatized.

[exlude]

Subsidized and regulated, not provided by the federal government. The effectiveness of both of those actions is also highly debateable.

Well, I see that as providing. Not entirely, but providing none the less.

[AL P]

Well, I see that as providing. Not entirely, but providing none the less.

I don't. Would those things be available if the feds didn't do the things they do? Sure they would, thanks to good old capitalism and/or the state government. In fact they were available long before federal government regulation came to be.

[exlude]

I don't. Would those things be available if the feds didn't do the things they do? Sure they would, thanks to good old capitalism and/or the state government. In fact they were available long before federal government regulation came to be.

I'm not saying they wouldn't. But the fact of whether or not they would exist has little to do with the fact that the government is helping to provide them to the people.

[AL P]

I'm not saying they wouldn't. But the fact of whether or not they would exist has little to do with the fact that the government is helping to provide them to the people.

You say "helping" I say "hindering" and making the whole system inefficient. The fact that they would exist without fed control has PLENTY to do with it too.

The problem with relying on the government to provide anything is the fact that the government has no incentive whatsoever to run an efficient operation. The delivery of the end product is not the focus of government activities, ensuring that government workers "don't lose their jobs" IS the focus. Basically it has become an extension of the welfare system. Instead of just handing people checks though....these people come in and move at the speed of molasses and THEN get a check. No incentive to do anything right, faster, more efficiently. What? we lost $3 billion dollars last year? No worries, we still get a 3% budget increase!!!

That's not "providing" anything except for a giant black hole for money to disappear into.

[exlude]

I agree, we need to cut spending on a lot of bullshit. But for utilities and necessities, I appreciate a government who can subisidize in order to keep costs down.

[Fobra]

The function of the federal government should be to protect the country and manage foreign relations and trade.

By any chance, do you consider yourself libertarian? FYI, not saying it's a bad or good thing, but this sounds very libertarian imo. :)

[utdbear]

I don't pretend to speak for AL P, but I think he is very anti-BS, and whoever can provide a government with the least BS, not kill babies, and let him shoot anybody that breaks into his house, I think he's for. Am I right? ;)

[futant]

I don't pretend to speak for AL P, but I think he is very anti-BS, and whoever can provide a government with the least BS, not kill babies, and let him shoot anybody that breaks into his house, I think he's for. Am I right? ;)

Common sense conquers again. ;)

[Danny]

I agree, we need to cut spending on a lot of bullshit. But for utilities and necessities, I appreciate a government who can subisidize in order to keep costs down.And I appreciate a government that would tax me less and subsidize nothing. :)

It seems to me that every industry where we allow the free market to reign, there is success and innovation and efficiency. Costs may go up, but that is temporary until it is realized that there is money to be made by entering the industry and costs go down back due to COMPETITION.

Every industry that the government blankly throws money at is stagnant and inefficient; in fact, those industries become that way by design in order to soak up MORE money.

I've never seen even a single government venture that wasn't hindered by excessive cost, red tape, and bureaucracy.

[black01gt]

The old people who get social security would be pissed (cue the violins)
:o How are your folks doing Al P?

[mikeb]

You know, if the congress people and senate people didn't get paid unless the budget was balanced and thus funds were available for payroll - i'll bet a lot of this "pork" spending would evaporate. That's the way real companies work after all.

[AL P]

:o How are your folks doing Al P?

Based on that response, better than yours.

[AL P]

I don't pretend to speak for AL P, but I think he is very anti-BS, and whoever can provide a government with the least BS, not kill babies, and let him shoot anybody that breaks into his house, I think he's for. Am I right? ;)

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as killing babies.

I'm no liberterian either. My views don't fit into any little box like that.

[01WhiteCobra]

I agree, we need to cut spending on a lot of bullshit.

Budget trivia...

$120 million dollars will be spent this year promoting marriage.

[AL P]

Budget trivia...

$120 million dollars will be spent this year promoting marriage.

Exactly. And what are they doing with that $120 million again?

[The Punisher]

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Thomas Jefferson