He made up for it years later when he let gay people die of AIDS because it wasn't worth looking into a matter that was only effecting that part of the population.

I don't think the real Reagan could win a primary in today's GOP. He raised taxes multiple times, negotiated with our greatest enemy, negotiated and sold arms to Iran, cut and ran form the terrorists in Beirut, worked closely with the Dems to pass his legislation, etc.

He's pretty much a crapshoot. Gets really out there sometimes but is also intelligent enough to just destroy someone when he wants to. I remember when he destroyed that guy a couple years ago who didn't know what appeasement was despite using it as his talking point the whole episode.

I love thought experiments so lets try this one.

Ignoring where the money would go, figure out how to cut $X from the federal budget. No favorites about 'oh it will go to tax cuts' or 'oh it will go to more entitlement programs'. Just find places to cut.

If it will help, use this website perhaps: Budget 2009 - Summary Tables

There may be a more accurate/accessible reference somewhere.

We could hunt for line items, for instance I wouldn't mind sinking (2010 numbers):
- Extend 2001 estate transfer taxes/gift taxes: 3.4 billion
- Extend 2001 dividends and capital gains structures: 9.5 billion
- Homebuyer credit for DC: 19 million
- Subpart F extension: 1.3 billion (unless you are a big fan of outsourcing which this helped encourage that touch more)

Or in general, what would you be willing to cut?

Maybe a breakdown by department would make more sense, I think those tables may be a little too high level. I would love a straight up list of every program we are funding and what it does, I'm sure we could find billions in stuff that both sides of the spectrum would consider bullshit.

I hear that chart was drawn up by the same guy who drew up the unemployment rates without a stimulus bill and with a stimulus bill.

Yes, that would be the same stimulus bill that last week became $75 billion dollars more expensive than previously anticipated.

Stimulus now $75 billion more expensive - Jan. 26, 2010

I heard it was drawn by Jesus using the magical ink-like tears of the virgin Mary.

Check and mate.

$75bn isn't that much in the scheme of things. certainly not as a % of the budget

If every bill we passed through ends up 10% over budget..........

$75B is $75B that we don't need to spend when our government is this far underwater. I remember when GOP representatives would justify Bush's spending saying that it wasn't that much in the grand scheme of things. It was a crock of shit then and it's a crock of shit now.

No, I think its just a fact, I was highlighting people's ignorance.

75bil on extended unemployment and food stamps is exactly what we should be doing in this severe of a recession.

btw- How can you slam the inaccuracy of the CBO and praise their conclusions in the same damn post?

I think the first step is focusing on institutional/administrative waste. And I don't know if there's an easy way to do that at the federal level, and I'm not familiar with the federal budget process.

At the state level, governors can call on agency heads to submit a proposed budget that slashes say, 10% from their prior budget. It's amazing how creative people can be about saving money when the get that edict. This is just my impression (though its based on close observation), but a 10% across the board cut in state government equals about a 0.5% cut in actual services. There is a point, where you're cutting bone and that % of services loss increases, but I don't think we get there very often.

The defense budget needs to be destroyed and rebuilt, of course, to create a more suitable armed forces for the threats we face today. I'm all for massive health care reform that puts the U.S. more in line with other countries when it comes to % of GDP and cost per person. I'd eliminate and consolidate departments, reducing staff by as much as possible. Federal employees would be required to take staggered unpaid furloughs.

but you forget...mizzou doesn't need food stamps or extended unemployment, so they don't matter to him.

Well, it's pretty clear that the unemployment projections weren't even close to reality, while it's easy to quantify an added cost. If that's what you're talking about, then I find the criticism and praise to be perfectly legitimate.

Neither do some of the people who collect unemployment or food stamps, but that doesn't stop them from doing so.

That CBO is tricky. Use it when it helps your narrative but discount it when it doesnt. awesome.

I see - so since you didn't deny it i assume we hit on the crux of it - if you don't utilize a program it's not important so it should be cut, even though other people might actually need it.

I work for the federal government as a contractor. While the contractors do good work because the next contract depends on doing good work in the existing contract, the government employees often have little incentive to do more than the bare minimum. This statement isn't meant to say all government employees don't do good work, but I'd guess that at least 50% of the government employees I interact with at their effort level wouldn't have a job in the private sector.

In summary, there's a LOT of places to trim the fat, but when funding never dies out, there's no incentive to do so.

Some do, but I'd argue that much like other government programs, there's far too much waste.

Yes, I just hate getting in line behind a millionaire who just demands she pays for her groceries in food stamps.

You've obviously never worked at a grocery store. You'd be very surprised who walks through with 'food stamps' (they're actually on debit cards now) and what they buy with those food stamps.

I actually did work at Jewel Food stores for a couple years when I was in high school.

What exactly are people buying on these? Illinois, like most states have strict rules in place as to what you can and can't buy on the card.

MBBF is still pissed about that time ODB came into his store and bought a case of Colt 45 with his food stamps.

That does still piss me off. Don't bring it up again.

How strict is 'strict'? Missouri just says no alcohol or tobacco or food for immediate consumption. That still leaves a lot of options that might not be the best choice for someone looking to feed themselves or their family. It really should be limited to generic brands as much as possible as well to avoid wasteful spending on what amounts to little more than a fancy label.

Tell you what, MBBF, I'll let you create very strict rules for food stamp use if you'll let me cut out all the obvious waste and inefficiency in defense contracts.

With the money you save we can give everyone a 0.001% tax cut. With all the money I save we can buy Japan.

It's limited to food or food product for human consumption. If someone wants to buy name brand over generic, then they are not getting their money's worth. The amount is based on what the State determines is enough money to feed an individual or individuals. If they don't spend it wisely, they are out of luck.

And as we all know, bi government is just gay government that hasn't come fully out the closet yet.

Or conservatives ignore the fact that the Red states are the welfare states in this country.

Why can't they both be terrible, terrible wastes of money? Why must everything be seen through the partisan prism?

Unemployment is also not an expense the rich are forced to pay for. It comes out of a tax that is factored into every employee's salary. Each employee is in essence paying 6.2% on the first $7,000 they make each year. Unemployment is a government run insurance policy on your job.

If you get rid of unemployment, you have to get rid of the tax employees are paying for it.

If you want something to get bent out of shape about, get bent out of shape about the billions of dollars from U.S. appropriations that simply disappear each year in Afghanistan & Iraq (most likely to corruption).

What if I don't want Japan? I mean, I'd love to visit but, by all indications, it looks like a pretty crowded island. ;)

SI

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

seriously. control what they eat? are you kidding mbbf?

this too. and yet they bitch about welfare.

kind of like the anti-gay preachers who have homosexual affairs - it's like they argue against their own self-interest out of self-hatred or delusion or something.

they both are terrible wastes of money. one is just more of a waste than the other.

Have you seen the porn they produce?

They can both be bad news but there's the matter of scope. I get annoyed about stepping in gum on the street. I've never understood how hard it is to toss it in the trash, yet there is it. And it just is annoying and something that might even bother you for a day: from when you get it stuck on your shoe to when you have to clean the last bits of it off when you take your shoes off for the day. But, you know what? I don't care about gum on my shoe if my house is burning down. And I would get really annoyed when someone wants to claim the gum on my shoe is my only real problem.

SI

Because the amount of money wasted by the Pentagon's use of no-bid and cost-plus contracts absolutely dwarfs the amount of money wasted by people buying brand name raisin bran instead of generic raisin bran on food stamps.

I'm not talking necessarily about the "food stamps" point. It always seems to me that when both parties just sidestep problems with their own pet projects by waving their hands at the other side's problems, nothing will get fixed. It's like the ship will continue to sink while the two halves of the crew bicker about who missed the iceberg.

The person buying name brand Raisin Bran isn't getting more money though. It's a set amount based on what the state feels is the minimum an average person needs to get by. Someone could use their whole card to buy a giant rack of lamb if they want and it doesn't cost the government a dime more than someone who bought generic Cocoa Puffs and powdered milk.

It's hard to be "an elitist" like many coastal liberals when you wake up on a farm and work 12 hours a day (did it myself for 2 summers as a kid). You don't make a ton of money and it doesn't leave much time to bitch and moan about horrible people on message boards ;)

funny how these "elitists" that you are talking about are the ones arguing for a more compassionate country. doesn't sound very elitist at all IMO.

the real elitists are the ones arguing for tax breaks for the wealthy and reduced social programs, not the ones arguing FOR them. funny that those are also the people who end up disporportionately paying for those programs also.

I'm right with you there.


I understand that, but that wasn't my point.

We could definitely save money on the Food Stamps program if we were more restrictive on what people could buy. But the money potentially saved pales in comparison to the money that would be saved if we were a more restrictive on how DoD contracts are done. And that's to say nothing of the difference in effort between the two changes. On one hand you've got to clearly define and police food choices, almost certainly creating a ton of overhead. On the other hand you require all contracts to be bid and be Fixed + Fee.

After all, it was only 7 years ago that the Pentagon admitted it couldn't account for $1 trillion in expenditures.

Lets just try to create the biggest pool of waste we can cut from the budget... maybe we could get both supposed parties on the ticket if its a platform of 'reduced government spending' combined with 'cut taxes on the lower classes'.

So say we screwed the top 1 or 5% entirely, and just passed all the savings directly to the lower brackets. As an independent I would love that (although I wouldn't benefit directly at all). If we are supposedly a consumption-based economy (however sickening that may be)... nothing would create as massive a boost in that consumption as severe reduction in taxes on the 'consumer class'.

Why? Because as a percent of income/taxes or however you want to measure it, rich people don't spend the same percentage of their incomes on the stuff that makes company profits soar (excluding finance, boooo) as lower/middle classes.

Since I'm not convinced we have a shortage of capital, encouraging investment (or trickle down economics) is pointless. If the middle class is paying X dollars less in taxes, the percent of that X going into consumption will be higher than any other government program can manage... at high efficiency even... since it doesn't require all that much administration to just adjust the formulae.

Throwing aside the partisan goggles, what can we cut?

I say Afghanistan to start, we don't need it, replace it with better border security and intelligence screening of travel (and intelligence in general). More cost effective and secure than a war, the only thing in the way is our oversized ego.

Next, Agriculture, kill off subsidies left and right, for the most part big-agriculture has been profitable all along (ignore stock price games...). They don't need help. And I'd venture the little guys would actually make more money and grow faster in the long run without the government meddling. Replace the subsidies with basic health-based regulation of the industry, focusing on raising food safety standards and stopping massively polluting meat factories. This BOOMS smaller farmers in my opinion, on average I'd argue they are putting out higher quality/safer product at lower margins compared to an industrial giant creating lakes worth of pig poop.

Well I can go into subsidies quite a bit (I hates them), but I'm sure we can find some that even pro-subsidy individuals can admit are just money handouts to specific companies that don't need them.

Administration, decrease its budget each year so it has to continue to tighten the belt. If something requires a lot of money to keep going, consider it as a program to reinvent or cut, because if you need that many bureacrats to keep it running you are probably doing something wrong. Just a hunch, but we could probably have a perfectly useless government with HALF the number of office workers it has now... after all it don't take much effort to filibuster every fricking thing coming through the Senate and whine to the media about it. Most of that office worker mess is probably to deal with all the lobbyists swarming around the place anyway.

Any google of "examples government waste" gives plenty of food for thought, some of it even with data, citations and from reputable think tanks.

The problem is that there's no real benefit to your average Congresscritter to get involved in cost-cutting. Rare is the constituency that's going to let you cut their spending, and even rarer is the Congresscritter who's going to allow you to cut their spending.

This is, honestly, where the President and his bully pulpit come into play. It's not a great tool, nor always a particularly effective one, but it's probably the only one really available to get a crusade on spending and waste started.

Then again, there's no real benefit for a first term President to do this either, in all but the most rare situations.

I know. It was more directed at MBBF who made it seem like buying generic products would save money when the amount is already predetermined.

You are 100% correct. Like getting in debt as a family and deciding you're going to switch to generic paper towels when the wife is spending $500 a month in designer purses.

In PA it was stupid. We'd get smashed on the day the cards got loaded. I worked in a gas station, and you'd see an order for 5 cold subs, they'd come to the counter and buy 3 bags of chips and a bunch of 2 liters. I can deal with the program, but the abuses(and lack of restrictions on what could be bought) were absolutely insane. Cold fruit smoothies($3-4) were covered, for instance, and purchased way more than they should be.

i see your point, and i think it honestly comes from "gee i wish the people would use it wiser and eat healthier," and i agree with you on that. but it's not like they used all that money and then got more the next day. they got what they got...it was a fixed amount. how they choose to spend it, wisely or poorly, was their own choice.

I agree with making tons of cuts to defense. Downsizing the welfare we provide to countries perfectly able to defend themselves would be a major chunk to the bottom line.