JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Group Avatar

Liberty Hub

""...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." -J.L."

Request Join
  • Mission Statement

    First off, it's not expected that all members are self-professed libertarians. This isn't a safe space for libertarians. This [i]is[/i] a place where people can discuss any topics that may pertain to liberty or natural rights. Topics for discussion range wide, and that's understood, but it's requested that you leave all [i]entirely[/i] unrelated topics at the door. This is an escape from low-quality and childish posts, hopefully.

  • Membership

    27 Members
    Total number of users that have joined this group
    8 Years as a Group
    Total number of years this group has been active
  • Admins

  • Tagged

originally posted in:Liberty Hub
6/29/2016 7:27:32 PM
26

More Government, or Less?

We need a net decrease in government spending.

217

We need a net increase in government spending.

20

Results/Other

72

I got my hands back on my copy of Steyn's [i]After America[/i]. Steyn is a conservative, but he's also a realist when it comes to U.S. debt. Too often (granted, not always), discussions over the budget conclude like this - [b]Liberals[/b] (progressives, but I'm nice) - "We ought to expand social spending. We can close the spending deficit [note - the deficit is [i]not[/i] the national debt] by adding layers to the tax code - layers that will prevent "the wealthy" from avoiding paying their fair share." [b]Conservatives[/b] - "Social spending is out of control. However, we need to "rebuild" the military, and it's of the utmost importance to 1) crush enemies in the Middle East, and 2) continue social regulation like the War on Drugs." Then Congress bickers over the placement of a few billion dollars, and the electorate treats the U.S. Presidential election as if it's nominating a Supreme Ideological Overlord. All the while, the debt clock ticks steadily upwards. Republicans might save us a few billion dollars here and there. Great, but it just gets borrowed and spent again within the week. The next day, they rubber stamp a bill that increases spending. Back to square one. They're no better than the Democrats. Both parties are spending the money of generations that have yet to be born. Let's get one thing straightened out, progressives. "The wealthy" don't have enough gold bars under their Emperor-sized mattresses to bail us out of this mess. Steyn's words... [quote]The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his "green jobs" racket. Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. Under the 2011 budget, the government of the United States spent $188 million every hour that it didn't have. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, including Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Ramadan. So how many of "the rich" would you require to cover that shortfall? ... According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's "Buffet Rule" [referring to billionaire Warren Buffet] will raise -- stand back -- $3.2 billion per year. Which is what the United States government currently borrows every seventeen hours. ... A nation that takes seriously the Buffet Rule and the other mangy and emaciated rabbits the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper is certainly in need of having its awareness of basic arithmetic raised. For what Big Government is spending, there aren't enough of "the rich," and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffet. He is the third wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffet is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the government of the United States, they would blow through it within four and a half days. Okay, so who's the fourth richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. Number six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffet between them could keep the United States government going for a week. The next richest American is Christy Walton of Walmart, and she's barely a semi-Buffet. So her $25 billion will see you a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffets, but, if you scrounge around you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffets: if you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is a little less than the federal shortfall in just one year of Obama-sized budgets. 2011 deficit - $1.56 trillion.[/quote] Now just apply the "millionaire's tax" to anybody who takes home more than... a quarter million a year (so much sense). How much are we coming up with? Enough to raise $19.3 trillion within a reasonable time frame? Don't forget interest payments, and don't forget that we've already [i]confiscated 100% of the wealth of the top 400 wealthiest Americans.[/i] So they're no longer paying into the system. It isn't about increasing revenue. It's about cutting costs. We spend [i]far[/i] too much, and shuffling around a few billion dollars in funding once a year isn't going to change anything, [i]Republicans.[/i] Programs need to get axed, and fast. So, what are your thoughts? Can we survive with current spending levels, or do we need a spending decrease? Or do you [i]honestly[/i] believe that a few extra layers on the tax code will rope us in enough income to deal with it?

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I'd prefer to set the goal at "better" (as in more efficient, more accessible, more transparent, less self-serving) and allow the matter of "larger or smaller?" be a side effect of "better". As one example, there is a huge difference between regulation (the need for it and the benefits of it) and the reality of regulatory agencies. An agency is created due to an observed or perceived need (doesn't really matter what that need is, all tend to apply), the Legislative branch then writes laws that determine what the nation wants done to regulate or control that issue or need. To enforce those new laws, the Executive branch either assigns the enforcement of those laws to an existing agency, or creates a new agency to enforce those laws. The Legislative branch then authorizes funding for that agency. So far, so good. Sounds perfectly reasonable, logical and effective. But then something strange happens. The agency (again, doesn't matter which one, they all do to some extent or another) knows that its existence (not just as a collection of letters and a logo, but as a group of people who get paid) is dependent on continuing to receive funding from the Legislature, and what every agency wants is not steady funding, but MORE funding. After all, bigger budget means "this agency can then do MORE". And so, the agency begins performing studies that show just how helpful and important its existence is. Not just the fact that it's enforcing laws, but that it's refining and building on those laws by determining new regulations that are agency created. They're not laws, but they have the power and force of laws, and they are determined and set by the agency that gets more funding to justify not only the enforcement of those additional regulations, but to support the growth and infrastructure of the agency itself. That's when a subtle cycle begins and agencies become powers unto themselves. Does anyone know what goes on in any of the multitude of alphabet soup agencies? And when I say, "goes on" I don't mean "what is their general purpose or stated reason they exist", I mean does anyone really know what they are doing with multi-billion dollar annual budgets? The IRS, FDA, and the rest of the alphabet soup? Here's a listing https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies have fun scrolling through it. Each of those agencies has to go to either its parent or to Congress, show how it spent last years budget, ask for the next years, and try to grow and continue to stay valid, worthwhile and ever increasingly "effective". The internal bloat that can build up in such organizations can collect faster than the plaque on the walls of a heart patient at an all-you-can-eat fatty food buffet. People don't get fired, they get new titles. The agency has to grow after all. Oh, and if the agency is large enough, the people who work for it can unionize. Not too terrible an idea on the surface, until you realize that when Congress is seen as the source of the payroll instead of the general populace, then the elected officials who are in Congress can be lobbied, pressured, and contributed to and when they are in office, they then authorize the budgets for those agencies, who then may see more money in their department, more benefits, and so on. Imagine if unionized employees of a private enterprise could help elect, support or even pressure the fiscal officers within the company they work for. When that happens, who is working for who or do we have one hand washing the other? IMO, regulations are a part of life and realistic, fair and reasonable ones should be in place and enforced professionally. But the "nature of the beast" when it comes to literally ANY agency is that eventually it becomes about preserving/enlarging/empowering itself as well as the intended purpose of enforcement. And that's why I would like to see something "better", where agencies are not just audited, but their entire existence is limited at the time of their founding/authorization and when that lifespan runs out, the Legislature then looks at what has been built, what is effective, efficient, worthwhile, and in the interests of the People. If it makes sense, keep the regulations that work, eliminate the ones that are chaff, and recreate the agency (or create a merged agency where two existing ones were overlapping) with an eye towards something that makes sense for that time, not keeping something that still has divisions dedicated to issues that are no longer relevant (but no one would dare remove them, because they get funding!). Any government agency, body or group that is not authorized by the Constitution? They should have an "expiration date" where it's previous existence and structure is reviewed, resolved, and either eliminated, tasked to other agencies, or that agency is built again, without the cobwebs, fat, inbreeding and cronyism that some agencies have enjoyed for generations. A rebirth and spring-cleaning, if you will. Experts who served in the previous agency are welcome to find positions within, especially considering their experience. But the restructure and new agency is treated as new and in need of "proving itself" and not "we've always been here, you just can't get rid of us". No aspect of the government should ever be "too big to fail", "too established to question" or "too important to start again from scratch", especially when not one person within ALL of those agencies was voted into their position or otherwise answers to the electorate. Not one.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    2 Replies
    • I could always use more Government model 1911's! [spoiler]I did read the OP[/spoiler]

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    • God, what a mess. Thanks for reminding me why I vote Libertarian.

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    • Either way works as long as their done well, however corruption is inevitable, and larger governments have more pieces likely to fall.

      Posting in language:

       

      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

      2 Replies
      • I think you already know my stance. For pragmatism's sake I would like to see a net decrease in both income and spending for the government. I think Britton and I would largely be in agreement for what cuts should be prioritized. Having anything remotely resembling corporate welfare is completely disgusting, and there's a lot of completely unnecessary subsidization. There needs to be not only a reduction in military spending, but a reduction in our military's mission. Being the international strongman at the expensive of our citizens' income is never justified. There's also an appalling amount of money being wasted on the war on drugs in various ways. It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

        Posting in language:

         

        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        2 Replies
        • Edited by C-Sentinel: 6/30/2016 6:03:41 PM
          Obama cut the deficit by 1 trillion in 8 years. Whoever comes after him should be able to cut off 500 billion in 4, Liberal or Conservative. Focus of nullifying the deficit before repaying the debt. Bill Clinton knew what he was doing. We haven't had a surplus since his budget was ousted.

          Posting in language:

           

          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

        • If every American payed $53,125, then our government would be out of debt. Seems fair to me.

          Posting in language:

           

          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

          1 Reply
          • Edited by Flynn: 6/30/2016 5:18:40 PM
            Anyone who voted less government better not vote Democrat.

            Posting in language:

             

            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

          • Edited by dat_ICE_doe: 6/30/2016 2:00:06 PM
            What the hell can you even do anymore? Voting seems meaningless. Speaking out gets you nothing but attention, no change comes of it. All you can do is keep up to date with all the lies and go out an get yours. Obviously you need government but nowadays they seem to be doing more harm than good. Oh well, our kids and grandkids are going to have to get pretty crafty when it comes to being financially safe.

            Posting in language:

             

            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

          • Arguably, both. Reroute spending to internal/interpersonal projects (education, housing, medical care, etc), and reduce funding to external and military R&D type projects. So instead of funding the "newest and greatest" military debacle, we put that money into improving the Education system. Instead of galavanting off to another pointless conflict, we fund better, more affordable housing for the poor. Instead of creating our newest pet project for dick-measuring contests, we provide better access to medical care. Etc.

            Posting in language:

             

            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

            16 Replies
            • Edited by U6757109: 6/30/2016 9:19:53 AM
              Very thoughtful post. The problem (in my opinion) seems to be with the monetary system itself. Where there is wealth, there will always be poverty. Where there is progress, there will always be greed. We need to abolish the monetary system and implement the Venus Project. Progressives have their hearts in the right places, but monetary economics won't let everyone live a decent life.

              Posting in language:

               

              Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

              1 Reply
              • Because every problem can be solved when we dont spend, right? Because governemnt spends our money overseas and our corporations dont, right. Spending gets the economy going. Govetnemnt can and should spend its the shoring up of assets by weathier individuals thats the problem. They store it and dont let it curculate, damaging the economy the middle and lower classes have less spending money then ever before. None of them get a cut of the profits and gains that america has gained for the last 30 years. Nice way to post btw. If you just said "more government" you know you would get more of those, so you put "spend more" to deter that vote and sway to your favor. You can easily increase governemnt without spending

                Posting in language:

                 

                Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                7 Replies
                • Edited by SuperStormDroid: 6/30/2016 12:54:15 AM
                  I'm all for stopping rampant spending, but we need a solid plan in place before the Department of Education is on the chopping block. Cutting the department without one will deny low income university students the financial aid they need to afford college, and make the student debt problem even worse in the long run since they will turn to loans without the financial assistance they need. Sure there is state financial aid, but that wont cut it in some cases.

                  Posting in language:

                   

                  Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                  7 Replies
                  • A vote for more efficient spending/less spending is the obvious choice. A streamlined military budget in a world economy where large scale wars are less and less likely seems to be a popular choice. I'm pretty sure ending the whole "war" on drugs, from enforcement to trial to incarceration would save a pretty penny as well.

                    Posting in language:

                     

                    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                  • Edited by Cultmeister: 6/30/2016 12:13:03 AM
                    At this point in time the debt is just an exponentially increasing number. With the current political system it's not going to slow down, let alone reverse, whether there's a Democrat or Republican government. You want a government that's 100% committed to reducing its spending whilst improving lives, because improving lives means people will earn more, so they won't be reliant on government programs or welfare (which costs practically nothing I know but it'll help if only a bit; the point is to make people wealthier so they won't need welfare rather than forcing people off welfare because they should be working harder) and if there are more tax brackets then they will be paying more tax too which will also help. By reducing spending I'm mostly talking about the military budget. Most of that can go and part of it can be diverted to education (as well as an overhaul of that particular -blam!- up of a department so kids actually learn shit). Also removing subsidies to those companies/industries that don't need it, that's literally flushing money down the drain, as well as making sure that 100% of tax is paid, because again it may a mount to a small sum of money initially but it all adds up. Increased spending is good if you want to provide an initial injection into an industry or idea, as a medicine for an economic ailment, but it just isn't sustainable as a lifestyle.

                    Posting in language:

                     

                    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                    1 Reply
                    • We need to lose the whole 35% business tax. Bring back the companies with the lowered taxes. Then lose all these BS regulations that kill small business and people who want to set up greenhouses,solar panels, windmills etc. green energy is a good thing but it is expensive to obtain in current circumstances. Crony capitalism needs to go. If you pay $7,000 in taxes then around 4,000 of that goes to business welfare ( credit goes to Britton for that statistic, maybe he will post it again here.) Trade schools and blue collar jobs need to resurge as we try and become the manufacturing center we used to be. Most of all people need to become more self sufficient. Solar panels and food gardens should start popping up more. Not even going to get into how deep of crap we are in as far as agriculture goes ( Honey bees colonies collapsing and monoculture crops being wiped out.) Once people rely on themselves more they will stop relying on the big government to suckle from. That includes the corporations that take subsidies. But yes net spending should go down. My two cents.

                      Posting in language:

                       

                      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                    • We need a robot army that's 10x bigger than the population of earth, dammit.

                      Posting in language:

                       

                      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                    • Neither and both. Give power to local government to look after local economy. The city state system was far from perfect, but the utter lack of synergy and cooperation between government branches at current isn't any better. If it weren't for the human element, all major forms of government would work well enough to be adapted to all regions with a few cultural barriers to be expected in incorporating world government... ...of course this is not a reality because of said human element. I'm a socialist. I'd abandon my preferred system happily for a period of anarchy as things settled down. A problem does arise in keeping greed in check as new territories were claimed and fought over, which is where a Republic would be needed. Not long after, we would be right back where we started. Perhaps we should just continue the way we have been and wait for some apocalypse to remove the fouled element holding back world matters.

                      Posting in language:

                       

                      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                    • Inbetween. Extremes are never good

                      Posting in language:

                       

                      Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                      8 Replies
                      • How it is right now is fine

                        Posting in language:

                         

                        Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                        3 Replies
                        • Decrease in spending (where necessary) and increase in taxes. (Like anyone would ever let either of those things happen).

                          Posting in language:

                           

                          Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                          4 Replies
                          • Just spend everything on nasa.

                            Posting in language:

                             

                            Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                            1 Reply
                            • Net decrease, as long as the decrease comes from the right areas.

                              Posting in language:

                               

                              Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                              7 Replies
                              • Not about how much money you have, its how you use it- Ekko the boy who made millions

                                Posting in language:

                                 

                                Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                                1 Reply
                                • You dont need to spend more or less, you just need to put that money where it is needed as well as where it is wanted.

                                  Posting in language:

                                   

                                  Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                                  11 Replies
                                  • Bump

                                    Posting in language:

                                     

                                    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

                                  You are not allowed to view this content.
                                  ;
                                  preload icon
                                  preload icon
                                  preload icon