Size Of Government - What Do We Really Want?

[Automatika]

Ok, really... who voted for the bigger government? Gotta hear the justification for that...

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy My solution: In order to send troops to fight anywhere in the world should require a majority vote in congress to raise taxes enough to cover the costs. With that requirement, we would only fight in the most urgent of circumstances where our interests are clearly threatened. Without that unfunded drain on the budget, balancing the budget should be a snap.

Unless you believe that the first responsibility of govt is to make sure its people are safe, which is not overtly stated in the Constitution but is implied. Fact is, we are the world's police, and not sure why we decided that was necessary.............

[GregLee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Automatika Ok, really... who voted for the bigger government? Gotta hear the justification for that...

I voted bigger, with reservations about the reasonableness of the poll questions. The "bigger" option favors increased taxes on the rich to support government services (which I favor), but the "smaller" option is about the don't-tread-on-me libertarian flavored sort of politics (which I also favor, though obviously I don't accept the libertarian idea that progressive taxation infringes liberty unfairly).

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Yep -- cut MY taxes, cut THEIR programs. Frankly I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

I'd settle for one that balances outflow and income. As someone once said, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it...

[Nodak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank there is to much government intrusion on private lives, too much taxation, too much spending of tax on foreign wars and supporting foreign countries. in addition federal, state, and local government workers are getting wages and benefits way beyond what is available in the private sector that pays for them. government has to be put under control and made smaller, with less regulation if we are to make it through this crisis.

+1

[Midpack]

I'd love to see some specifics that signficantly impact the deficits with these broad general proposals.

• Starting with a 2010 deficit of $1,294B.
• From what I've read rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add $275B/yr (CNNMoney), better estimates welcome.
• The highest estimates I've seen for the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are under $200B/yr, though I saw one that claimed half our defense spending is these two wars (about $420B), better estimates welcome.

Point is, both of these together would address about 1/3rd to 1/2 the deficit. Where does the rest come from - has to be entitlements no? Isn't the rest pointless bickering?

[MasterBlaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I'd love to see some specifics that signficantly impact the deficits with these broad general proposals. Starting with a 2010 deficit of $1,294B. From what I've read rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add $275B/yr (CNNMoney), better estimates welcome. The highest estimates I've seen for the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are under $200B/yr, though I saw one that claimed half our defense spending is these two wars (about $420B), better estimates welcome. Point is, both of these together would address about 1/3rd to 1/2 the deficit. Where does the rest come from - has to be entitlements no? Isn't the rest pointless bickering?

To answer you...

1) The rest comes from a recovered economy generating additional revinue.

2) To get the "all-in" costs on the wars you need to include all the VA-medical expenses for all those severely injured in the wars as well as worn-out equipment replacement (tanks/planes etc.) and interest to finance it all. When you include that the figures I have seen go to the $800B - $1T level.

3) take a look at a chart like you show around say 2025 to see the explosion in Medicare/medicaid costs. This is due to the Boomers retirement numbers as well as the medical costs continuing their rapid rise. Unless that program gets under control the deficits will be approximately the size of current spending - every year. Clearly it isn't sustainable.

[jackontrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Yep -- cut MY taxes, cut THEIR programs. Frankly I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

That's exactly how I feel as well. The gov't needs to strike a balance between providing just enough services and security so that everyone can live in this country decently, without the overreaching.

I'd like to see an end to the wars. I'd like to see trimming of all the waste. I think entitlements are the last thing we should touch because...let's face it, most people who are using these entitlements NEED them.

I'd like to see a low flat tax for everyone (business + individuals) and minimized (if any) tax deductions. That would be fair.

I'd like to see healthcare, utilities, and all essential services be run not-for-profit, to prevent gauging citizens and to promote better quality services.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack ...pointless bickering?

+1

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I'd love to see some specifics that signficantly impact the deficits with these broad general proposals. Starting with a 2010 deficit of $1,294B. From what I've read rescinding the Bush tax cuts would add $275B/yr (CNNMoney), better estimates welcome. The highest estimates I've seen for the cost of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are under $200B/yr, though I saw one that claimed half our defense spending is these two wars (about $420B), better estimates welcome. Point is, both of these together would address about 1/3rd to 1/2 the deficit. Where does the rest come from - has to be entitlements no? Isn't the rest pointless bickering?

Heck, lets not pay the interest and we can save an additional $200 billion....

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackontrack That's exactly how I feel as well. The gov't needs to strike a balance between providing just enough services and security so that everyone can live in this country decently, without the overreaching. I'd like to see an end to the wars. I'd like to see trimming of all the waste. I think entitlements are the last thing we should touch because...let's face it, most people who are using these entitlements NEED them. I'd like to see a low flat tax for everyone (business + individuals) and minimized (if any) tax deductions. That would be fair. I'd like to see healthcare, utilities, and all essential services be run not-for-profit, to prevent gauging citizens and to promote better quality services.

This is all coming, right after the Rapture.

Ha

[Purron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha This is all coming, right after the Rapture. Ha

For you my dear Ha.

YouTube - ‪Blondie - Rapture‬‏

[sundance]

It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

[HawkeyeNFO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carol911 It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

Well, fact is the money you paid in many years ago was quickly spent shortly thereafter on someone else's benefits. Any money you may be receiving now has been paid in more recent years by someone younger. It's a pyramid scheme.

My personal preference would be to treat it like many corporations treat their retirement programs - offer a buyout: Take a lump sum payment now, and never have to contribute again, but the flip-side is that you never again receive money from the program.

I think I know better than the government how to take care of myself and my money.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeNFO My personal preference would be to treat it like many corporations treat their retirement programs - offer a buyout: Take a lump sum payment now, and never have to contribute again, but the flip-side is that you never again receive money from the program.

It might be cheaper from an actuarial standpoint but:
1) Where would we get the scratch to make those lump sum payments?
2) The government/voting public will NOT let people starve if they take the lump sum and then blow the money. That's just the way it is--there will be some type of support payments for people who are "victims of poor decisions that were made". I'd rather not be burdened by the taxes needed to support these payments, so I'd be against the lump-sum payout idea.
I'd like to empower folks to take charge of their lives, too--but not if I have to pay for a safety net.

We could never have the western migration and settling of the West today. What were those folks thinking?! Puting themselves and their little children at risk from heat, cold, starvation, attacks by unfriendly elements, etc. Have they received any training for this quest? As a caring society, we'd have to establish rest stops every few miles for the wagon trains, create support payments for settlers who ran out of resources enroute, counseling for those traumatized by life on the trail, etc. I can only weep for the environmental damage done by those wagon wheels and foraging oxen.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purron For you my dear Ha.

Sweetest thing I've heard all day.

Ha

[obgyn65]

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carol911 It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

What you paid in was spent on earlier recipients long ago, all you have is an IOU. It's most certainly an entitlement, even the SSA acknowledges that...

Understanding Supplemental Security Income
Social Security Entitlement2011 Edition
Understanding Supplemental Security Income (SSI)-- Social Security Entitlement

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carol911 It "annoys the heck out of me" when people refer to "Social Security" as an entitlement. Heck, I have paid into it since I was 16yrs old. I dont see it as an entitlement. I am worried for the young people starting out!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack What you paid in was spent on earlier recipients long ago, all you have is an IOU. It's most certainly an entitlement, even the SSA acknowledges that...

I still think Carol911 has a valid viewpoint. Regardless what the SSA did with the money, she (we) have had deductions from our paychecks, and our employers matched that - our eventual payments are based on a formula that is based on what we paid into the system.

We are paying in to 'support' the system. Whether those payments flow directly to our personal SS check is largely irrelevant, it seems to me. We need to feed the system, and we did our part.

As a parallel, let's say you buy a TV that had sat on the shelf for a year. The company already paid its bills for the materials and labor, and the store already paid for the TV. I guess I could say that my money did not 'pay' for that TV, right? Customers before me must have 'paid' for it? And now I'm paying for some future customers TV? I guess that is true also, but not really relevant.

-ERD50

[MasterBlaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I still think Carol911 has a valid viewpoint. Regardless what the SSA did with the money, she (we) have had deductions from our paychecks, and our employers matched that - our eventual payments are based on a formula that is based on what we paid into the system. We are paying in to 'support' the system. Whether those payments flow directly to our personal SS check is largely irrelevant, it seems to me. We need to feed the system, and we did our part. As a parallel, let's say you buy a TV that had sat on the shelf for a year. The company already paid its bills for the materials and labor, and the store already paid for the TV. I guess I could say that my money did not 'pay' for that TV, right? Customers before me must have 'paid' for it? And now I'm paying for some future customers TV? I guess that is true also, but not really relevant. -ERD50

Whatever you feel you are entitled to.... is just you feeling entitled.

The courts have ruled that you have no contractural right to any payment. The rules can be changed with the whim of congress.

And they will make changes after great amounts of pontification, because the money just isn't there..... There is no "trust fund". It was spent. All we have is giant debts that need be paid.