(March 17, 2017 at 4:01 pm)Aroura Wrote: Basically, my order would reverse that of the current administration.  I would like to see my tax dollars go to:
1. Improve public education.  This would include brick and mortor schools, but also programs such as PBS, and encowments for arts and humanities.
2. Medical aid for those living in poverty.
3. Useful infrastructure (bridges, schools, roads, Wind mills, solar plants, etc)
4. Food and clothing aid for those living in poverty.  Including welfare, meals-on-wheels, WIC, school lunch funding, nutrition education, etc.
5. Research and applications for protecting the environment.
6. Security spending, including military and Coast guard.
7. Increase the tax burden on the wealthy, decrease it on the middle class and poor.

Good list; I'd move #6 to #10:

6.  Increase foreign-aid, including, worldwide childhood vaccination and nutrition programs.
8.  Basic research, especially, in the life and physical sciences.
9. Technological research, especially, in the area of supercomputers.

popeyespappy Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Cut military spending until it's only equal to the next four countries combined. Use half the savings to pay down debt. Use the other half for sensible results-based programs. A fiscal conservative should consider that a win-win.

In round numbers that would be about a 50% cut in defense spending. 50% of the defense budget wouldn't make the annual interest payments on the federal debt much less start paying it down.

I question that 130 billion (around 25% of the total military budget) a year combined with current payments (around 400 billion) would not begin to pay down the debt. That's like saying that if I'm meeting the minimum payment on my debts and increased what I'm paying by 35%, I wouldn't get out of debt sooner, or at least go into debt slower, depending on the terms. The debt has been growing (nearly 20 trillion dollars now) because of course we've been borrowing more than we've been repaying, not unusual in a recession (or a war followed by a recession). Paying more than the minimum without increasing borrowing will reduce it.

---

It would be lovely if charities could cover the needs of Americans so adequately that government intervention to help people was completely unnecessary. But if they're clearly not doing it. They could make the programs completely redundant and we'd have to cut them because they'd become pointless. Even if just the Christian majority contributed only, say, an additional 10% of their income to helping the needy, they ought to be able to generate over a trillion dollars a year for the task, about what the government spends on social programs. I'd be happy to join that initiative if it got going. It would do more to reduce the scope and reach of government than any elected official could and all I care about on the matter is that people get what they need.

But I'm not going to hold my breath, and in the meantime, disadvantaged people still need help. If the people on team Jesus in this country really heeded the NT admonishments to help the poor (a duty not covered by their tithes), a welfare state wouldn't have been needed in majority Christian countries in the first place. Christians complaining about government spending too much on poor people has a certain irony considering they would be making it unnecessary in the first place if they were interested in authentically following their own teachings.

I'm grateful to the Christians who do actually walk the walk when it comes to helping the poor; and anyone else who does the same thing. It would be nice if there were more people like them. Since there aren't, we need government programs.

Just to put things in perspective:
Currently budgeted full cost of ITER, the one nuclear fusion experiment that should show to the world that Fusion is a viable source of power: somewhat more than €20billion.... let's round it up to $50billion USD, over the foreseen 35 year lifespan of ITER.

Compare with the US's annual military budget: $500 billion USD per year.

You guys could cut your military spending by 10% on ONE SINGLE YEAR and pay for the whole Fusion power research, which offers a near free, inexhaustible power source for the whole world!

Or, you know..for us...to be used in our carriers and suchlike.  

(March 21, 2017 at 9:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

popeyespappy Wrote:In round numbers that would be about a 50% cut in defense spending. 50% of the defense budget wouldn't make the annual interest payments on the federal debt much less start paying it down.

I question that 130 billion (around 25% of the total military budget) a year combined with current payments (around 400 billion) would not begin to pay down the debt. That's like saying that if I'm meeting the minimum payment on my debts and increased what I'm paying by 35%, I wouldn't get out of debt sooner, or at least go into debt slower, depending on the terms. The debt has been growing (nearly 20 trillion dollars now) because of course we've been borrowing more than we've been repaying, not unusual in a recession (or a war followed by a recession). Paying more than the minimum without increasing borrowing will reduce it.

The problem with what you're saying is reducing spending by $130 billion doesn't balance the budget. Annual spending will still be more than annual revenue. We are still going to be borrowing, and the debt will continue to rise until we stop borrowing. Completely zeroing out defense spending wouldn't balance the budget.  



Zeroing out the defense budget would have negative effects as well. Not the least of which is 6 million more people (about 5% of the workforce) would suddenly become unemployed. That would double the unemployment rate, and probably send us into another depression. That would reduce revenue and make it even harder to balance the budget.

Don't get me wrong. I think we should reduce spending starting with defense. I think we should increase tax revenue starting with raising social security and medicare taxes. We need to get to the point where we can start paying down the debt. Getting there without crashing the economy is going to be the equivalent of juggling chainsaws and flaming cats while riding a unicycle across a loose tightrope in gale force winds. It ain't going to be easy.

(March 20, 2017 at 8:22 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(March 20, 2017 at 7:46 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I don't pay tax actually as I'm unemployed.

Well... except council tax. I pay the council and they pay my rent. I think it's 20 percent of my rent or something like that. But then I don't have to pay rent. And that's the only tax I have to pay.

I have no idea how normal tax works, lol.

Oh and politically I'm socially left and economic centre, I reckon.

Taxes till affect you, though, even if you don't pay them.

Many people, low income, disabled, retired, etc. people don't, and that's totally fine.

Well I guess I'd like the tax dollars to go to people on a low income... especially those who struggle to take care of themselves or anyone who depends on them.

(March 17, 2017 at 9:15 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: I would advocate that addressing the national debt is a priority.  This can most likely only be accomplished by spending less or making more through increased taxes or more revenue from a higher GDP.  

Tax the rich.
Cut tax avoidance schemes.
Properly fund health care through a tax on everyone, none of this insurance shit.

(March 21, 2017 at 12:16 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(March 21, 2017 at 9:35 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I question that 130 billion (around 25% of the total military budget) a year combined with current payments (around 400 billion) would not begin to pay down the debt. That's like saying that if I'm meeting the minimum payment on my debts and increased what I'm paying by 35%, I wouldn't get out of debt sooner, or at least go into debt slower, depending on the terms. The debt has been growing (nearly 20 trillion dollars now) because of course we've been borrowing more than we've been repaying, not unusual in a recession (or a war followed by a recession). Paying more than the minimum without increasing borrowing will reduce it.

The problem with what you're saying is reducing spending by $130 billion doesn't balance the budget. Annual spending will still be more than annual revenue. We are still going to be borrowing, and the debt will continue to rise until we stop borrowing. Completely zeroing out defense spending wouldn't balance the budget.  



Zeroing out the defense budget would have negative effects as well. Not the least of which is 6 million more people (about 5% of the workforce) would suddenly become unemployed. That would double the unemployment rate, and probably send us into another depression. That would reduce revenue and make it even harder to balance the budget.

Don't get me wrong. I think we should reduce spending starting with defense. I think we should increase tax revenue starting with raising social security and medicare taxes. We need to get to the point where we can start paying down the debt. Getting there without crashing the economy is going to be the equivalent of juggling chainsaws and flaming cats while riding a unicycle across a loose tightrope in gale force winds. It ain't going to be easy.

I thought Social Security was not funded by the government, but by people paying into it?  I'm not sure I trust this graph, then.

Also, I think it's pretty clear we need to increase revenue, not just cut spending.  The current admin will cut revenue by cutting taxes on those who can afford to pay them by quite a lot.  This needs to be reversed.  The top 1% used to pay much higher taxes and get along just fine, and the economy did better as well.

We can find places to make cuts, but cuts alone aren't ever going to cut it (pun intended) if we don't also find a way to pay for the things we do want.

(March 21, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Aroura Wrote: Also, I think it's pretty clear we need to increase revenue, not just cut spending.  The current admin will cut revenue by cutting taxes on those who can afford to pay them by quite a lot.  This needs to be reversed.  The top 1% used to pay much higher taxes and get along just fine, and the economy did better as well.

TBH you probably don't need to increase taxes on the rich, just close avoidance loopholes which enable them to pay far less than they otherwise would.

Wouldn't cutting some programs total budget save us more than the cost of the labor involved in fulfilling a military contract...we could just as easily dole out the labor portion of that corporate welfare to private citizens directly and save money in the process -it's not as if military goods were procured at cost. The corporate middlemen in these little "think of the workers" schemes are damned expensive.