The US Government Funding: How cutting NASA, Navy, Dept. Of Defence and others still won't solve the - General

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0RkWqyn1y4[/media] Interesting watch. Any economic experts out there to validify this?

You cant cure the debt in a year, cutting in small amounts eventually will add up. [I]EVENTUALLY[/I] We are in a [I]big[/I] hole, and we can't dig our selves out in a day Aslo by cutting NASA and education you are destroying the process for gaining money. NASA has brought us things we cannot live without today (GPS, Satilietes, Rocketry, etc), and Education gets our kids to make and take jobs. But cutting things that are a detriment, (Military and the Bush tax cuts) will help... Over time How else do you guys think that we can get out of debt?

By that logic, cutting education and oversea bases only would balance the budget in 6 to 7 years. Sound like a good idea to me.

[QUOTE=Thugaim;35392053]By that logic, cutting education and oversea bases only would balance the budget in 6 to 7 years. Sound like a good idea to me.[/QUOTE] Why would you cut Education when you can take that amount and barely dent the military I'm not attacking the soldiers right now, look at the programs and other wastes of money, the air conditioning in the fobs in Afghanistan costs 20 BILLION, that's more than NASAS budget. Or how about the war in general, how about the money sent to isreal for weapons, compare the weapon supply to actual foreign aid for African and other poor countries and you will see how bloated the budget is.

Here's another way the government could save money. If we increased the area of the ocean we conserved, the population of fish would go up and the quality of the seas would improve. The areas surrounding those conserved areas will boom in fish population was well, and fishermen could easily make enough money from those. Instead of paying the fishermen to not fish (30 something), it would cost us only 1.3 something(I think it's million) to fund and continue protecting the increased area. [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/enric_sala.html[/url]

So, when they stop spending money on everything, where does the rest go ...?

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35392181]Why would you cut Education when you can take that amount and barely dent the military[/QUOTE] The budget cuts took away 450,000 US Army jobs, AKA, we fired 450,000 soldiers. There are a lot of ways, but firing people is not it.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35392719]The budget cuts took away 450,000 US Army jobs, AKA, we fired 450,000 soldiers. There are a lot of ways, but firing people is not it.[/QUOTE] what do you think happens when you cut NASA or the education budget as well?

Cut half the military budget and it's equivalent to like 400000000000 times the education budget.

[QUOTE=Sickle;35392838]Cut half the military budget and it's equivalent to like 400000000000 times the education budget.[/QUOTE] And half a million military personnel with nowhere to go.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;35392888]And half a million military personnel with nowhere to go.[/QUOTE] Most of the budget isn't for the workers or soldiers but the useless plans and programs in place for killing people. Are you guys saying that the soldiers need to stay at war to have a job? That's fucked up if you ask me

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35392719]The budget cuts took away 450,000 US Army jobs, AKA, we fired 450,000 soldiers. There are a lot of ways, but firing people is not it.[/QUOTE] I have some friends who are in the armed force. They "fired" them in the sense that they're not re-newing their contracts once they reach the end of their service. I know a few of them who had theirs renewed even after the cut was done(meaning those that preformed better stayed on). [editline]1st April 2012[/editline] But yeah, to succeed we're either going to need to cut budgets, add more taxes(which is how to do it, just spread out), or re-look at what we're doing.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35392181]Why would you cut Education when you can take that amount and barely dent the military I'm not attacking the soldiers right now, look at the programs and other wastes of money, the air conditioning in the fobs in Afghanistan costs 20 BILLION, that's more than NASAS budget. Or how about the war in general, how about the money sent to isreal for weapons, compare the weapon supply to actual foreign aid for African and other poor countries and you will see how bloated the budget is.[/QUOTE] How about you sweat your ass off in 120+ degree weather and temps that easily get in to below freezing. Afghanistan has some pretty extreme weather.

[QUOTE=MR-X;35394087]How about you sweat your ass off in 120+ degree weather and temps that easily get in to below freezing. Afghanistan has some pretty extreme weather.[/QUOTE] It's twenty billion, that's alot of money for JUST air conditioning

So you're telling me that the US spends 2.2 trillion each years on: social security medicare mediaid interest on the debt ?? How is that possible.

I liked this video, but that conclusion came out of fucking nowhere. He's absolutely right that cuts won't solve the problem- but instead of "stop making promises to future generations that we can't keep", why wasn't the conclusion, "increase income through increased taxes"? [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=maurits150;35398473]So you're telling me that the US spends 2.2 trillion each years on: social security medicare mediaid interest on the debt ?? How is that possible.[/QUOTE] Social security doesn't even cost us anything. It's funded entirely in-program. People give a portion of their income to the social security program, and that pays for all the expenses of social security, plus a surplus, that will continue to keep it funded in-program for 30 years.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35392788]what do you think happens when you cut NASA or the education budget as well?[/QUOTE] I am not saying that, I am saying make it so jobs are not cut. Right now budget cuts = jobs to whoever is in charge so there needs to be another way. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=credesniper;35393078]I have some friends who are in the armed force. They "fired" them in the sense that they're not re-newing their contracts once they reach the end of their service. I know a few of them who had theirs renewed even after the cut was done(meaning those that preformed better stayed on). [editline]1st April 2012[/editline] But yeah, to succeed we're either going to need to cut budgets, add more taxes(which is how to do it, just spread out), or re-look at what we're doing.[/QUOTE] Higher taxes means people are more reluctant to spend money on things which means businesses begin to die.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35401075]I am not saying that, I am saying make it so jobs are not cut. Right now budget cuts = jobs to whoever is in charge so there needs to be another way. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] Higher taxes means people are more reluctant to spend money on things which means businesses begin to die.[/QUOTE]How do you think things will fair with low taxes, the government needs income. Why tax the ones with no money to spend and tax less on the ones who can afford to do so?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35399661']I liked this video, but that conclusion came out of fucking nowhere. He's absolutely right that cuts won't solve the problem- but instead of "stop making promises to future generations that we can't keep", why wasn't the conclusion, "increase income through increased taxes"?[/quote] How much do you think we will have to raise taxes to balance our budget?

How about you Americans stop paying so much in subsidies to the oil companies? Isn't it hundreds of billions? Slap some tax on the price of fuel and you've got yourself a huge money maker. That's what our government did, you'll be next.

[QUOTE=sam.clarke;35401845]How about you Americans stop paying so much in subsidies to the oil companies? Isn't it hundreds of billions? Slap some tax on the price of fuel and you've got yourself a huge money maker. That's what our government did, you'll be next.[/QUOTE] That's a stupid idea because that ends up fucking over the poor. Our standard of living will drop like a brick.

i can barely afford gas as it is, horrible idea

[B]TAX THE RICH[/B] Duno 2012 (aka boxes galore)

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35401075]I am not saying that, I am saying make it so jobs are not cut. Right now budget cuts = jobs to whoever is in charge so there needs to be another way. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] Higher taxes means people are more reluctant to spend money on things which means businesses begin to die.[/QUOTE] The raising of taxes would only be a small thing among a lot of other actions to re-balance our deficit over a period of time.

[QUOTE=duno;35403374][B]TAX THE RICH[/B] Duno 2012 (aka boxes galore)[/QUOTE] IT seems so fucking simple for the president to sign an executive order instead of pleading with congress and the senate and getting jack shit done.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35401683]How much do you think we will have to raise taxes to balance our budget?[/QUOTE] [url]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/taxing-the-rich/[/url] "The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows). Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the cuts that House Republicans were seeking in last week’s budget talks." Combined with the cuts he was proposing, then we can deal with it. And we can avoid having to cut medicare and medicaid if we dump those programs in support of a Social Security-style single-payer healthcare system. Simple and to the point. And if economic regrowth is an issue, all we need to do is look at the New Deal for ideas. It's a fair assumption, given the evidence, that New Deal-style programs stimulate economic growth.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35404698'][url]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/taxing-the-rich/[/url] "The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows). Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the cuts that House Republicans were seeking in last week’s budget talks." Combined with the cuts he was proposing, then we can deal with it. And we can avoid having to cut medicare and medicaid if we dump those programs in support of a Social Security-style single-payer healthcare system.[/quote] That's $78 billion. Our deficit is over 20 times that. In reality, we need to start gutting programs and streamlining them. There is no reason for us to have such bloated welfare and defense spending. These programs need to do the same thing they are doing, on less money. Government waste is a huge issue and simply cutting or increasing revenue doesn't address it. Also, the taxes during the 1950s are misleading, since the effective tax rate was much lower. Just the same, it's irrelevant because the 1950s was a period of tremendous economic growth. We could support a higher tax rate during these times. In case you haven't noticed, we are in a period of economic recession right now, so higher tax rates could have unintended consequences as far as the markets go. [quote]And if economic regrowth is an issue, all we need to do is look at the New Deal for ideas. It's a fair assumption, given the evidence, that New Deal-style programs stimulate economic growth.[/QUOTE] There is little evidence that the New Deal had any positive effect on the economy. Unfortunately, WWII was the major contributor to ending the great depression, and any long term effects of the New Deal are completely buried in the war's contribution. The only thing we know is that some of the New Deal's programs seemed to have helped alleviate some symptoms for a short while, and hurt in other ways.

I like how he wants to FUCK us over because they can't do simple economics.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35404893]That's $78 billion. Our deficit is over 20 times that. In reality, we need to start gutting programs and streamlining them. There is no reason for us to have such bloated welfare and defense spending. These programs need to do the same thing they are doing, on less money. Government waste is a huge issue and simply cutting or increasing revenue doesn't address it. Also, the taxes during the 1950s are misleading, since the effective tax rate was much lower. Just the same, it's irrelevant because the 1950s was a period of tremendous economic growth. We could support a higher tax rate during these times. In case you haven't noticed, we are in a period of economic recession right now, so higher tax rates could have unintended consequences as far as the markets go. There is little evidence that the New Deal had any positive effect on the economy. Unfortunately, WWII was the major contributor to ending the great depression, and any long term effects of the New Deal are completely buried in the war's contribution. The only thing we know is that some of the New Deal's programs seemed to have helped alleviate some symptoms for a short while, and hurt in other ways.[/QUOTE] Like I said, that 78 billion (and it could be more- I have no issue with a progressive tax that peaks at 80% or more), combined with the cutting of most everything he mentioned, and turning the social welfare programs into single-payer internal-paying systems, you're saving shittons of money. Cutting is fine if we look to increase revenue- we need both, neither will do it on its own. The 50s was indeed a time of economic growth, given that we had open jobs and returning soldiers. We don't have open jobs now. WWII was definitely a simulator, but the New Deal was seeing immediate improvements before the US was involved in the war. The simple creation of jobs started circulating wealth and opened new opportunities for those who had one previously. Considering how we have a ruined infrastructure and have the capacity for jobs, but simply not the economic power in the private sector to host those, there's no reason we shouldn't be providing government-sponsored or government-paid jobs to people across the board to stimulate economic growth in the people and in the nation. The best possible thing we can do for the economy at this moment is get people into jobs so they have money in their hands.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35405528'] WWII was definitely a simulator, but the New Deal was seeing immediate improvements before the US was involved in the war. The simple creation of jobs started circulating wealth and opened new opportunities for those who had one previously. Considering how we have a ruined infrastructure and have the capacity for jobs, but simply not the economic power in the private sector to host those, there's no reason we shouldn't be providing government-sponsored or government-paid jobs to people across the board to stimulate economic growth in the people and in the nation. The best possible thing we can do for the economy at this moment is get people into jobs so they have money in their hands.[/QUOTE] The problem is that in such a short timespan we don't really know what sort of long term effects the New Deal had. Some aspects of it seemed to work, but we don't know if those effects were temporary, or if they would end up hurting us long term. Remember that we were in a depression right up until WW2. Also note that even if the New Deal helped, the help it gave wasn't that great, compared to WW2. So it's hard to say whether New Deal policies will necessarily be that effective. Some economists definitely agree with New Deal policies, and think that they would be great. Others say that they aren't that effective and may not really help us as much as we may like to think. What I think is clear, however, and I hope you agree with me on this, is that we need to pursue one type of policy. The problem with politics is that we have a conservative administration/legislature, that pursues a certain style of economic policy. Then 4-8 years later we have a liberal administration/legislature that changes that policy to something else. We can't keep flopping around because without a set goal and route to take, we will never get where we are going.