What progroms are you willing to give up?
@knoodleknight18 (917)
United States
January 3, 2012 6:52am CST
We're getting to the point where everyone talks about making cuts in government spending and it's going to have to happen sooner or later. The government keeps talking about cuts to social security and things that would make a huge uproar. So my question is, what cuts would you be willing to make to save the government money? Bonus points if you can give accurate estimates as to how much it would actually save.
I try and choose the route that will do the least harm to the last people.
Half of what the FCC does. Regulating something people can do using their TV remote seems like a bad investment.
Could make the war on drugs cheaper. Maybe legalize and tax weed.
Don't pass SOPA, just gonna cost more money.
Cut back on a lot of research funding. Most important research can get private funding.
Cut back on education. A well educated workforce is beneficial. But not if it's unemployed.
I'd keep welfare and social security because mass poverty is more expensive to deal with, but some sort of reform is still needed.
Reduce military operations overseas. Sometimes its necessary, but not to the point we do it.
Disband or reform agencies that do jobs already done at the state level. There's a ton of agencies to regulate food and water supplies, tons more than overlap for law enforcement. Agencies need to either to do specific jobs or combine into the agencies they overlap on a regular basis. That could probably get us out of the hole if done right.
Can also do away with bailouts. Since they have yet to have a single positive outcome.
The last one alone would have saved 770 billion. Not sure if that's enough but it's a good start.
3 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
3 Jan 12
Contrary to popular belief about legalizing and taxing "pot," it will actually cost the government more to do so than they will collect in taxes.
The thing that many people don't realize that legalizing "pot" would create more government and not less.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
9 Jan 12
However, you have yet to state any facts that back up. While you say you can quantify those savings, you really can't accurately make any arguable real savings because has been admitted, there are no numbers on how many people smoke pot. So no one can say for sure the actual savings versus the actual income. There is a part of your equation missing.
You absolutely cannot disregard the cost of regulation because it is another part of the budget which has to be addressed. It is part of your "Savings" equation. How do you know you are getting real savings if you don't know how much it costs to enforce the rules.
But back to the sunshine and roses problem, you are probably the very first person who has actually acknowledge that legalizing pot isn't necessarily going to make the problems we have now disappear.
PS. The only reason that I used Prop 19 as the basis for the argument was because it was the most recent legislation introduced on pot usage.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
3 Jan 12
The easiest way to balance the budget is simply to get rid of all the "deductions' that are in our tax code.
People with a lot of dependants frequently pay little or no taxes (some get back more than they pay in the first place). But, these are the same families that consume a lot of tax dollars (education, transportation, food stamps, medicaid, etc). They should pay more if they are using more.
Would people really stop buying homes if they could not use them as a tax deduction? I don't think so.
Would they stop supporting charities if the gifts were taxable? I don't think so.
And, corporations, research does not need to be deductable. If these companies do not do research they would go out of business because they had no NEW products and the old ones would be outdated. The same is true of major purchases. Without buying new equipment and plants, the companies would go out of business - they do not need all of these tax deductions.
If they would just eliminate the tax deductions and tax credits and say you made this amount so you need to pay this amount - it would make taxes a lot simpler
and greatly increase the amount of money taken in.
But, I would not cut education, I would increase it. Without a good education, the unemployed would stay that way. Even old jobs that used to be available to unskilled workers NOW require a good education to do.
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
6 Jan 12
I couldn't agree more. There's too many deductions especially ones like donating to charity and for big businesses in general. They are usually used as incentives to stimulate the economy or progress though they clearly aren't doing much of that any more.
And a simplified tax would be so much easier on everyone.
@mensab (4200)
• Philippines
3 Jan 12
budget cuts must be done to stop the bleeding of public money going out of the country for debt payments to foreign countries. it is time to tighten the belt of the government and start looking for ways to cut some bloated spending. i think cutting the military presence overseas will do much savings for the coffers. not only it will bring back the troops, it will also bring back dollars of spending.
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
6 Jan 12
I agree, it doesn't just cost us a lot of money to send troops out, but it costs us in terms of them not spending it here either.