POLL: How You would slash the American Federal Budget

[Feuer Frei!]

Put your hypothetical caps on and let's imagine we can put forward reason to Washington DC, reduce spending to a sustainable amount and secondly no longer borrow money.
What would you slash? Or eliminate?
There are ofc some variations, however and for the purpose of this poll, the 4 major Budget Issues are divided up equally, a half a Trillion each:

1) Interest on debt, approx 1/2 trillion
2) Military spending, approx 1/2 trillion
3) Social Security, approx 1/2 trillion
4) Medicare, approx 1/2 trillion

[JSLTIGER]

None of the above. I would re-write the tax code in order to increase the amount of revenue that the government takes in. Eliminate loopholes, tax shelters and breaks (as all they do is allow you to put off paying taxes, not eliminate your debt anyway), and increase the corporate rates.

Additionally, I would eliminate all of the federal agencies that are doubles of each other. Best example: Why do we need the USDA to inspect food AND the FDA to inspect food? The USDA should handle all food safety and the FDA should be re-directed to handle only drugs. Let's eliminate a lot of the waste that the government has. Additionally, let's see if we can't find ways to squeeze the budget by reducing the number of federal departments.

[Oberon]

Invade Canada. :yep:

[Platapus]

None of the above. I would re-write the tax code in order to increase the amount of revenue that the government takes in. Eliminate loopholes, tax shelters and breaks (as all they do is allow you to put off paying taxes, not eliminate your debt anyway), and increase the corporate rates.

Additionally, I would eliminate all of the federal agencies that are doubles of each other. Best example: Why do we need the USDA to inspect food AND the FDA to inspect food? The USDA should handle all food safety and the FDA should be re-directed to handle only drugs. Let's eliminate a lot of the waste that the government has. Additionally, let's see if we can't find ways to squeeze the budget by reducing the number of federal departments.

Some good idea there. :yep:

I would keep the corporate rate at its present level but get rid of many of the deductions and all the loopholes and shelters.

I would also like to see a reduction in the military industrial complex. And yes, I am part of that complex, but I still think that is the logical area to make some of the cuts... even if it costs me my job.

[Anthony W.]

I don't want to hijack a thread by writing a book

So - I'll just say - I hate social security

[FIREWALL]

Raise internet taxs by 50% :haha:

[Dan D]

The "Euro" will surpass the Dollar as Leading International Reserve Currency.
That is called "competition", despite "social security".
"Get used to it". Your thoughts?

[magic452]

Increasing tax revenues will do nothing towards reducing the federal budget but will do just the opposite. Give politicians more money, they will just spend more. The problem is spending not tax revenues.

I do however agree that the tax codes need to be tightened up, corporate and personal. Corporate rates could go down and eliminate shelters and other deductions which put work or funds overseas. Lower rate fewer deductions will increase revenue.
But we are talking about the federal budget here and increasing revenues will not address that issue only spending cuts will.

Eliminating overlapping and unnecessary agencies and reducing all other agencies' budgets would be a big help. Problem is the heads of all these agencies love power and the bigger their budget the more power they think they have. It's a game to them. Increased revenue will do nothing on this front but a reduction in revenue would if borrowing is restricted, balanced budget requirement.

Closing overseas bases will no doubt save some money but no where near enough. More accountability in military spending would also help by eliminating waste and mismanagement. But that ain't going to happen for much the same reasons as the above.

Here in Nevada we have been hard hit by the housing crash and recession
and state and local budgets have been heavily trimmed.
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling" everyone cried, but last I looked it was still there. Budgets can be tightened by quite a lot and things still get done. There isn't a agency in the country that couldn't do with a 10 or 15% cut if the department heads really wanted to. Balanced budget requirement.

Social Security and Medicare are the only paces where you can save enough money to begin to address the fiscal deficit and national debt.
Going to need something along the lines of what Bush purposed but a much better proposal than his, it sorta sucked in many ways.

Politicians won't do anything about these unless we hold a gun to their heads. Lately elections don't seem to be working all that well we put new people in and they just do the same darn thing, So maybe a balanced budget amendment would get some results. That some how was not in the poll.

$0.02

Magic

[Platapus]

8 posts and no one caught the historical error?

Constitution of 1776????

[Stealhead]

What happens to all the military members that get their job axed if you do a base downsizing?(if you reduce that stuff you also reduce the manpower needs) That happened in 92-93 and several thousand military members where forced to leave the military if you do that now you just add more people looking for a job that is a problem that would occur at least short term.You could save a lot by making the government more efficient though.The military industrial complex needs to get over the Cold War mentality really badly so there are things that could be done even though they will have a shorter term negative effect.

[Platapus]

What happens to all the military members that get their job axed if you do a base downsizing?

That is also one of the reasons Bush and Obama could not simply "end the wars". Consider how many reservists and guard are deployed as a full time job.

Consider the unemployment and the economy back at home.

Consider how "firing" (ending the war) these full time employees (reserve and guard) and the effects of dumping them on the local economy.

No jobs now, no jobs when they demob.

Kinda F-ed up when keeping reservists and guards in harms way is an economic stimulus program. :nope:

Everything is interlaced. :yep:

[August]

I think the place to cut military spending is not with the troops out in the field but rather the brass back at the Pentagon. We also should get rid of most of the civilian contractors too.

[Stealhead]

I agree with August they pay some civilian contractors way too much:nope:
They could cut out alot wasteful things in the military.

For example I had to go to this "deployment" exercise once it lasted three days and all myself and most of the people there did was sit inside the terminal all day while a few clerks sat there and simulated our processing we did not have our deployment gear or anything so most of us did nothing at all
and where taken away from our regular duty which in my case they could not really afford to send a troop away but they had too so my entire unit got slammed without me which cost more money because we directly supported aircraft and Im sure the pointless exercise cost a few grand when ti did not need to but they'd spend money on that while my unit ran out of money that month and had to borrow parts from a brother unit.I'm sure some officer at the Pentagon made full bird O-6 over that exercise.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

As foreigner my knowledge is limited but here is what I would do.
1. Remove duplicate job (as already said about gov agencies)
2. Increase Pentagon procurement efficiency
3. Contracts
a. Adjust contracts so that staying in budget and specifications is rewarded
b. Offer extra fixed value (x amount of $) rewards to companies who are able to drop unit costs without compromising product quality

[Snestorm]

More foreign input.
I hope this is allowed, as I checked all but the last.

The Constitution does not need to be scrapped!
It needs to be force fed to the government, by the people.

[Torplexed]

Invade Canada. :yep:

We tried that in 1775 and 1812 and they beat us back with their hockey sticks. :dead:

[Sailor Steve]

We tried that in 1775 and 1812 and they beat us back with their hockey sticks. :dead:
Kinda sorta almost. That's a bad idea today because we'd have to spend too much money for too little return.