Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
OK, Gnu, I'm with you in completely eliminating every single one of the government programs listed in your article. That will reduce government spending by $120 billion a year.
Now, where do we cut the other $980 billion a year in order to balance the budget?
Are we getting back to "means testing" Social Security and Medicare benefits and reducing defense spending? Where are the other costs totaling $980 billion that are candidates for cutting?
|
Defense spending, as much as it is hated by so many, is only 2% of the total budget. A popular place to cut, but, as we saw in the first gulf war not very smart to do. It took months to build a sufficient military force, after Clinton decimation of the budget left our services so under staffed and unequipped.
Social Security most certainly needs reform. What started a a security blanket, designed to keep the populace from poverty in retirement after the depression, has grown to another dependency at the government trough. It's the white elephant in the room that nobody wants to address, because it would cause ridicule to whoever broaches the subject and if they are a politician, would cost them their office.
Nobody, including me, wants to see their parents in their 80's, lose any of their meager SS income. But, we do need to change the whole idea of retirement so that Americans don't sit back and expect their SS deductions to be their only means of support in retirement. Retirement is NOT the governments obligation.
There are those among us, through not fault of their own, who were never in a position to support themselves, let alone save for retirement, and I will admit that some kind of support from society is needed. But there are MANY who don't need SS or a simply ripping off the system. (as I wrote in the thread "SS the new welfare". What are the numbers and cost of the people in the US, who never intended to do anything but retire at the governments expense
I personally support "means testing", after, not before the SS waste is eliminated. There was quite a row, between my Father in law and I about the subject, 20 years ago when I brought it up. I felt then, and still do now, that at some income point we need to take care of ourselves. Should we Americans not be self sufficient if possible? It seems not, when the government keeps saying "don't worry I'll provide for you" and generations have become dependent on SS as their savior.
One of the arguments that I hear over and over again is 'it's my money, I worked for it am entitled to it". The BIG ENTITLEMENT mentality!! When your children are out of school do you get tax money back? Do you get your share of defense money back if we're not at war? If you never have a fire do you get a tax refund? No to all I assume. Paying into the government, whether to SS or the general fund, does not guarantee you a return on the money put in. If in your lifetime you didn't have children, or there was no war, our you never needed the fire department, you don't get anything back for your taxes! SS is a TAX. People collecting TODAY are not collecting their own money back, but rely on other earners to pay their way.
As far as the rest of where the government can save, I believe in zero based budgeting. Start with zero and only add what passes the smell test.
I know that I will get a passionate response to my writings, but I am strong in my beliefs and have never backed out of what I believe in.