Archive

What would you cut from the budget?

  • tcarrier32
    end the war on drugs. over $600 dollars every second of every day of every year since 2003 has been spent.

    http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

    its always counting, and that money has done absolutely nothing to curb use in this country. you'd figure someone would try another approach, but our government continues to surprise me.
  • believer
    tcarrier32;575468 wrote:...and that money has done absolutely nothing to curb use in this country. you'd figure someone would try another approach, but our government continues to surprise me.
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - allegedly from Einstein

    At any rate it's a perfect description of government futility, waste and ineptitude.
  • QuakerOats
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101130/D9JQCLT80.html
  • BoatShoes

    Meaningless. See below.

    "...Yet there is little consensus on specific, meaningful steps - and a wariness about touching two gargantuan programs, Social Security and Medicare."

    I'm sure I would agree to cut these magical services that exist somewhere in the ether....
  • I Wear Pants
    tcarrier32;575468 wrote:end the war on drugs. over $600 dollars every second of every day of every year since 2003 has been spent.

    http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

    its always counting, and that money has done absolutely nothing to curb use in this country. you'd figure someone would try another approach, but our government continues to surprise me.
    I agree with this. It certainly isn't the only thing that needs cut but it literally isn't working at all.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;581991 wrote:Meaningless. See below.

    "...Yet there is little consensus on specific, meaningful steps - and a wariness about touching two gargantuan programs, Social Security and Medicare."

    I'm sure I would agree to cut these magical services that exist somewhere in the ether....

    Actually it is very meaningful. It is continued confirmation that THE PEOPLE want LESS government and lower taxes. I could whack 20% from government spending in a heartbeat, and no one would know the difference. It is time to get on with it!
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;582046 wrote:Actually it is very meaningful. It is continued confirmation that THE PEOPLE want LESS government and lower taxes. I could whack 20% from government spending in a heartbeat, and no one would know the difference. It is time to get on with it!

    Really? Where? I and the rest of the country need to know specifics now.
    I'm for cuts as well, but in actual hard programs, SS and Medicare as well as some defense.
  • QuakerOats
    Everywhere.
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;582159 wrote:Everywhere.

    According to the very link you provide; the people don't agree with you. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.
  • I Wear Pants
    QuakerOats;582046 wrote:Actually it is very meaningful. It is continued confirmation that THE PEOPLE want LESS government and lower taxes. I could whack 20% from government spending in a heartbeat, and no one would know the difference. It is time to get on with it!
    Prove it. What 20% would you cut that no one would notice?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Here is the FY 2010 budget
  • gut
    I Wear Pants;582204 wrote:Prove it. What 20% would you cut that no one would notice?

    It is nearly impossible. Only about 40% of the budget can be considered "discretionary spending", which includes a large chunk for military expenditures. We spend far too much on the military, once saw a statistic that it is more than the next 15 countries COMBINED. Cut that in half (clearly too aggressive, at least overnight) and that's about 10% right there. I think interest expense on the debt is another 5%, and if we could get out from under that albatross that's not insignificant. So there is about 15% right there between the two, but it's a long-run adjustment. Shaving 5% off the remaining 20% in discretionary spending is probably not overly painful if you trim the fat and inefficiencies.

    To get there, however, requires a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. I think the best place to start is to bump the FICA and reduce SS and Medicare benefits. A 2% increase in those taxes, split between employer and employee, works out to about a 14% increase in that tax base. It would not be overly difficult to get a balanced budget with responsible choices, and then a 15% cut in entitlements provides the money to start paying down the debt. The entitlements I'm referring to represent about 40% in spending, so figure the tax increase and cuts I mention produces some $250B a year to pay down the debt - so that would take 20-25 years to pay down all the debt!
  • gut
    BoatShoes;562264 wrote:Don't know if anybody saw this. This is a neat "deficit puzzle" provided by the "New York Slimes." You get to choose how you could fix the deficit.

    www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
    I thought I was pretty reasonable...without significant entitlement cuts (I capped medicare growth and reduced SS benefits for the wealthy) I got a $79B surplus for 2015 and a $139B surplus for 2030. I think it illustrates pretty well that reducing the DEBT (not just the deficit) is going to involve some changes to FICA and SS/Medicare benefits. Not hard to balance the budget, but generatng a surplus to begin paying down the debt is going to create some pain.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100

    liberal democrats spend us into oblivion; they should be tried and convicted of treason!
  • Ty Webb
    QuakerOats;615528 wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100

    liberal democrats spend us into oblivion; they should be tried and convicted of treason!

    Quaker...you can't be serious can you
  • Belly35
    QuakerOats;615528 wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100

    liberal democrats spend us into oblivion; they should be tried and convicted of treason!

    I agree QO but that not going to happen so let just cut their retirement and medical as a warming to other Public Servant Assholes.

    Hey! I have a great idea: At the end of election year those that are voted out, the people in their district can have a second vote on giving that Public Servant a retirement and or medical benifits and it can be on a scale . 100% benifts 75% ,50%, 25% or Zero
  • Writerbuckeye
    Ty Webb;615538 wrote:Quaker...you can't be serious can you

    Why not?

    They're pushing us to the cusp of financial oblivion. If you are actively working to destroy the country, willfully or otherwise, you should be called into account. This Congress knew it was going against the majority of the public's wishes; they knew it when they pushed through the stimulus and the healthcare bill. All those calls, letters and protests told them so. Yet they ignored it all and went forward.

    Then in the lame duck session, they just continued more of the same, even though many of them had been tossed on their collective asses because of their irresponsible spending.

    If we ever get to the point that our economy implodes, the first people who should be brought to trial are the members of this Congress and President Obama. President Bush should be third in line.
  • Bigdogg
    Writerbuckeye;615666 wrote:Why not?

    They're pushing us to the cusp of financial oblivion. If you are actively working to destroy the country, willfully or otherwise, you should be called into account. This Congress knew it was going against the majority of the public's wishes; they knew it when they pushed through the stimulus and the healthcare bill. All those calls, letters and protests told them so. Yet they ignored it all and went forward.

    Then in the lame duck session, they just continued more of the same, even though many of them had been tossed on their collective asses because of their irresponsible spending.

    If we ever get to the point that our economy implodes, the first people who should be brought to trial are the members of this Congress and President Obama. President Bush should be third in line.

    Since you most likely voted for many of the above shouldn't you also be tried for treason as a co-conspirator?
  • Writerbuckeye
    By your logic, the mother of a serial killer should be held culpable for the murders because she brought him into the world.

    Daft.

    Those folks (most of whom I did NOT vote for, by the way) had something called FREE WILL after they came into office. They used it to the detriment of the country by CHOICE.

    They and they alone are responsible.
  • QuakerOats
    Ty Webb;615538 wrote:Quaker...you can't be serious can you

    Ty, have i ever not been serious in the political forum?

    Get in the game!
  • I Wear Pants
    I Wear Pants;582204 wrote:Prove it. What 20% would you cut that no one would notice?
    Question still stands.

    Also, on the Drug War front we should switch our efforts from "cracking down" and enforcement to prevention and treatment. These have been found to be much more effective and don't result in lots of people being killed.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/portugals-drug-policy-pays-eyes-lessons/

    We could learn some lessons from them.

    And I know you'll all scoff at this since it's about San Franscisco
    In San Francisco's gritty Tenderloin neighborhood, Tyrone Cooper, a 52-year-old lifelong drug addict, can't stop laughing at how a system that has put him in jail a dozen times now has him on the road to recovery.

    "Instead of going to smoke crack, I went to a rehab meeting," he said. "Can you believe it? Me! A meeting! I mean, there were my boys, right there smoking crack, and Tyrone walked right past them. 'Sorry,' I told them, 'I gotta get to this meeting.'"

    Cooper is one of hundreds of San Franciscans who landed in a court program this year where judges offered them a chance to go to rehab, get jobs, move into houses, find primary care physicians, even remove their tattoos. There is enough data now to show that these alternative courts reduce recidivism and save money.

    Nationally, between 4 and 29 percent of drug court participants will get caught using drugs again, compared with 48 percent of those who go through traditional courts.

    San Francisco's drug court saves the city $14,297 per offender, officials said. Expanding drug courts to all 1.5 million drug offenders in the U.S. would cost more than $13 billion annually, but would return more than $40 billion, according to a study by John Roman, a senior researcher at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Pants, that's an interesting article. I have a personal (sort of personal) story that shows a differing viewpoint that ties in with your article.

    I have a very good, close, years long friendship with a man who just recently came back from spending a month at "The Watershed" rehab facility in Florida. From the information he has shared with me, it seems that many people will be back at that facility at least a few more times. Some of the people were court ordered, some people were repeat stayers, some of the people were sent their by their workplace, some for saving their marriages, etc. Some people even go on to keep clean.

    So, my question would be: if it's a one time stint, I'm certain the costs WOULD be cheaper. However, if paying for someone to repeatedly go to rehab, for whatever reason, those costs would add up also.

    I didn't read your link, just the part you quoted, but it doesn't say anything about the costs of repeaters and how that adds up - perhaps not by 1 calendar year, but say a period of over 5 years. I would wager that those numbers reverse noticeably.
    I hope I'm wrong about that, because that kind of addiction is devastating not only to the user by to those in that users life. It's really a vile thing.
    (as you can probably tell, this subject is really compelling to me)
  • derek bomar
    CenterBHSFan;616689 wrote:Pants, that's an interesting article. I have a personal (sort of personal) story that shows a differing viewpoint that ties in with your article.

    I have a very good, close, years long friendship with a man who just recently came back from spending a month at "The Watershed" rehab facility in Florida. From the information he has shared with me, it seems that many people will be back at that facility at least a few more times. Some of the people were court ordered, some people were repeat stayers, some of the people were sent their by their workplace, some for saving their marriages, etc. Some people even go on to keep clean.

    So, my question would be: if it's a one time stint, I'm certain the costs WOULD be cheaper. However, if paying for someone to repeatedly go to rehab, for whatever reason, those costs would add up also.

    I didn't read your link, just the part you quoted, but it doesn't say anything about the costs of repeaters and how that adds up - perhaps not by 1 calendar year, but say a period of over 5 years. I would wager that those numbers reverse noticeably.
    I hope I'm wrong about that, because that kind of addiction is devastating not only to the user by to those in that users life. It's really a vile thing.
    (as you can probably tell, this subject is really compelling to me)

    the cost of rehabbing repeaters is still going to be lower than housing them in jail, paying cops to find them, etc...isnt it?
  • stlouiedipalma
    QuakerOats;615528 wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100

    liberal democrats spend us into oblivion; they should be tried and convicted of treason!

    Quaker, is that brown shirt getting a little tight around the collar these days?
  • I Wear Pants
    CenterBHSFan;616689 wrote:Pants, that's an interesting article. I have a personal (sort of personal) story that shows a differing viewpoint that ties in with your article.

    I have a very good, close, years long friendship with a man who just recently came back from spending a month at "The Watershed" rehab facility in Florida. From the information he has shared with me, it seems that many people will be back at that facility at least a few more times. Some of the people were court ordered, some people were repeat stayers, some of the people were sent their by their workplace, some for saving their marriages, etc. Some people even go on to keep clean.

    So, my question would be: if it's a one time stint, I'm certain the costs WOULD be cheaper. However, if paying for someone to repeatedly go to rehab, for whatever reason, those costs would add up also.

    I didn't read your link, just the part you quoted, but it doesn't say anything about the costs of repeaters and how that adds up - perhaps not by 1 calendar year, but say a period of over 5 years. I would wager that those numbers reverse noticeably.
    I hope I'm wrong about that, because that kind of addiction is devastating not only to the user by to those in that users life. It's really a vile thing.
    (as you can probably tell, this subject is really compelling to me)
    Statistically people are much less likely to return to use after rehab/treatment than they are from just a jail sentence/fine. It did say in the excerpt actually:

    "Nationally, between 4 and 29 percent of drug court participants will get caught using drugs again, compared with 48 percent of those who go through traditional courts."

    Because if the cost of someone is less with a treatment program it will certainly be less if you consider they are half as likely to return to drugs (though I'm unsure if they counted that in their savings amount, if they didn't the savings would be even greater). Drug courts and treatment/prevention programs are more effective, cheaper, and result in less people returning to a life a drugs. But we'll continue this "war" on drugs because it's what we do.