The 1946 Republican Congress...

[richard_daily]

Winding down the largest effort ever undertaken by any government will tend to lead to a major cut in the federal budget, yes.

Ssssh, he thinks he's on to something. It's like watching a small child, you don't want to ruin their enjoyment.

 

[phrodeau]

Winding down the largest effort ever undertaken by any government will tend to lead to a major cut in the federal budget, yes.

And the work of the WPA meant that they could relax for a while and wait for the infrastructure to deteriorate.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

And the work of the WPA meant that they could relax for a while and wait for the infrastructure to deteriorate.

That lasted for what, a whole decade and a half before the national interstate system was started?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

Don't know about energy subsidies, but they cut the military so much we almost couldn't respond in Korea. We had 12 million under arms at the end of WWII, Truman fired 10 million federal employees, I assume that included the military.

I guess I ask because I hear all these proposals to cut stuff like CPB and the EPA, etc, etc, but the people suggesting those cuts don't ever seem to want to talk about how much we spend on the military. You know I'm a veteran and far from some dove who hates soldiers or whatever, but do we really need to spend as much as we do? Last I read we were spending some huge percentage of the world's military expenditures.

Consider this from Robert Gates:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in 2009 that the U.S. should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: "What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."[37] Secretary Gates announced some of his budget recommendations in April 2009.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Then there's this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png





If you wanted to take a really effective bite out of the budget, where's the obvious place to start?

 

[unregistered]

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I guess I ask because I hear all these proposals to cut stuff like CPB and the EPA, etc, etc, but the people suggesting those cuts don't ever seem to want to talk about how much we spend on the military. You know I'm a veteran and far from some dove who hates soldiers or whatever, but do we really need to spend as much as we do? Last I read we were spending some huge percentage of the world's military expenditures.

Consider this from Robert Gates:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in 2009 that the U.S. should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: "What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."[37] Secretary Gates announced some of his budget recommendations in April 2009.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Then there's this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png





If you wanted to take a really effective bite out of the budget, where's the obvious place to start?

Has little to do with the issue at hand but Social Security never should have been part of the general fund to begin with. Nor should it be counted as a liability when it is separately funded by the taxpayer and their employers.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SleepingWarrior]

We can argue this all day. I will only say that the defense of the nation is the NUMBER ONE responsibility of the government, not Medicare, not Social Security.

The American people are going to take a meat ax to the federal government, lots of folks are going to get pissed, but when it's all over we will still have our military.

Liberals, and what liberals say about what is required to defend America has no credibility with the majority of Americans old enough to remember Jimmy Carter.

I suspect there will be cabinet positions eliminated, and entire departments gutted or disbanded before it's over. Democrats who stand in the way will be swept out of office.

Yes, defense is the number one responsibility of the government but that doesn't negate the fact it is also one of the most wasteful areas of government as well.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Look, half the fucking government is a waste of money. The fucking post office loses 50 billion a year. The Department Of Agriculture is a joke, HUD is a big waste of taxpayer money, it goes on and on. Each has their own littler amen corner to tell you how valuable they are, but a waste just the same.

You can cut half the defense budget and get nowhere against the 4 trillion in national debt racked up by Obama in the last two years.

Using the post office is a bad example since their expenses are self contained. That and its only a few billion a year, not 50, anyway.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I stand corrected. It lost 8.5 billion last year even though mail volume dropped. It's on a track to hit 50 billion by 2020.

You'll like this though... I think I read somewhere that 4bil of the deficit is due to the post office having to prefund its pension plan

 

[unregistered]

 

[SleepingWarrior]

There is this:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POSTAL_FINANCES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Postal Service supposedly receives no tax payer funds it does borrow taxpayer money to pay it's ever burgeoning deficits.

Eventually the Postal Service and businesses will have to get to together and figure out a way to enact a 3 or 4 day delivery schedule. Or a staggered delivery system where service is divided in 2 and delivery is scheduled for every other day in order to cut the workforce down drastically. Other alternative will be raising rates like 10-15 cents.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I stand corrected. It lost 8.5 billion last year even though mail volume dropped. It's on a track to hit 50 billion by 2020.

Wait wait wait. Did you just point out that if you get less work you make less money and tried to pass that off as surprising?

I'm quite confident we'll have subsidized free internet for all Americans and frankly computers are already getting damn cheap now that some little $100 (or less) e-machine will soon be in the hands of everybody. I see no reason to think we can't or won't shut down the the Post OFfice completely soon enough. It was victim of competition and invention. Oh well shit happens.

The military budget is WAY too big and you know it. We all agree that defense is the most important thing. However our military is severl times the size of anybodies and most of the next leading militaries are our allies anyway. There are no credible threats to us on the planet. The closest thing TO a threat is Islamic Terrorists and they bypass our military anyway. And in reality they aren't so much a threat as a bunch of children rattling sabers.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Think about it a minute. What is surprising, is that despite a lesser mail volume, ie., needing less labor, less resources, losses due to excessive overhead still mount. A real business would reduce it's overhead to accommodate the lesser volume to stay in the black.

Except they aren't a real business for starters. I don't know enough about the USPS and I wager ou don't either to know if making thost kinds of cuts are possible without just dismantling the still needed agency. Until Americans have free internet we're going to need the post office. It kinda sucks but there it is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think he's just trying to get you to like him. He's insane if he thinks there is a real threat to us out there right now. There hasn't been one of those in at least twenty years, And outside of just nuking the shit out of everything prolly longer than that.

Oh and I'd start by cutting the Air Force out of existance entirely and switch the jobs and sizes of the Amry and Marine Corps.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

If he thinks there is a credible military threat to us from what? China? Russia? Yeah I'll go with nuts until more evidence is heaped on.

I'd cut the Air Force entirely and split their mission amongst the remaining 3 (2 and a half) branches. Every branch of the military has it's own air wing today so they are no longer unique (if they ever were since they were originally a part of the Army way back) and when the most famous pilots in the world (The Blue Angels) are Navy not Air Force I think we can pretty solidly call you a failure. Not to mention they are the most pampered brats in the military and literally live more comfortably in Iraq than Marines do state side. I'm sure that cutting them would probably be the biggest single cut you could make.

The Army and the Marines have at some point become redundant. If I understand my history properly back in your day the Marines were who you sent into gain territory and do all the crazy shit and the Army were the guys you sent to hold the territory later. The analogy we were told was that the Marines were basically your boxer, they hit hard and hit fast. The Army was your Sumo Wrestler. Big and slow but damned if anything you could do would stop him once he found the spot you wanted.

Today though they simply compete for each others missions. I say it's past time to call the Army back within our borders train them figure out something for them to do here (ideally I'd find ways to change the current laws so they could double as border security but hey I know that's asking a bit much) And decrease the active duty numbers. Either that or increase the number of them trained to do other jobs ideally complimentry to whatever their MOS is. Let the Navy and the Marines be the sole military that leave the country and operate over seas. Obviously the Marines would need an increased amount of personell to handle this. But a simple tour of a Marine base vs an Army base tells you which one costs more money.

In addition I'd close any overseas bases that weren't either vital to national security. (yeah I recognize we need soemone ready if the middle East jumps off for real real, not for play play like right now.) It would be a case by case basis for the bases that are pretty much good will at this point. Germany doesn't need us. They want us cus 18-24 year olds with 100% disposable income are great for a local economy.

By and large I'd cut the DEA which has clearly been a failed experiment. The drugs still get in and now we (and Mexico) have gang issues funded by the drugs that we are forcing them to sneak in instead of walking in. It's truly terrifying now nobody looked at prohibition, then at the DEA and said "you know what? Fuck it."

Homeland security. . .as big as it is most of it was here pre-Bush we just called it different things. From what I've read it probably actually saves us money in simply by reducing some of the redundancy. That said shrink it. The reality is (and I know you're gonna violently disagree) is that terrorists do a terrible job at killing Americans. They've killed if you add up every pure terrorist act (so Iraqi and Afghani veterans don't count) about 10k over the last forty odd years. (I can dig up the exact numbers i used to have them on hand) and nearly a third of that was in a single tragic day. They haven't had similar sucess before or after. If saving lives is the goal I bet you we could save twice number of people by having paid public designated drivers sitting at bars (plus since you wouldn't need to bring a DD there'd probably be an increase in business!) But it's not productive.