Typical response to cuts: sequestration

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't believe the answer is to just do away with it...there IS a better answer than just saying, sorry...it's gone; go starve to death.

I've looked at government spending enough to know, not just believe, that doing away with it is not the only answer - it's a question of choices more than a question of ability.

 

No, there isn't a better answer than the truth. If the money is gone, it's gone. It is gone everywhere else, also, if

we're borrowing better than 40% of our budget each year. That money spent at DHS and everywhere else is only

funny money, also. I don't want anyone to be hurt, but I don't think generational theft is the answer, either.

 

We allowed this problem to fester. We will have to fix this problem or outright kill it. When you borrow money you

know you can't pay back, you are essentially stealing, or are causing a future generation into slavery. This government

is allowed to do things you and I can't do. I wonder why we allow that? It has to stop.

[JPR1959]

I'm 53 years old and I've seen my 401K lose money through 5 or more recessions over the years.  I lost my old job 5 years ago and now make 40% less than I did then.  My health insurance now costs twice what it did in the past.  I agree with both Robert and AR.  I know deep down, we're all screwed.  Our social programs have crippled our country and will drive us to bankruptcy in 10 years.

[mav]

I don't believe the answer is to just do away with it...there IS a better answer than just saying, sorry...it's gone; go starve to death.

I've looked at government spending enough to know, not just believe, that doing away with it is not the only answer - it's a question of choices more than a question of ability.

 

 

Arguing whether to do away with SS and/or Medicare or not is really pointless because nothing is going to be done by either party.  Things are going to get worse until the entire system crashes, and all of the politicians know it is going to happen.  I think all we are seeing now is political posturing by each party so they can blame each other for the inevitable crash.

 

Just my $0.02, I think dismantling SS and Medicare is really the only option we have.  That said, I believe there are ways one can go about it instead of instantly killing it.  First off, you have to have harsh means testing.  If you are of age to receive SS and Medicare and financially well off you get nothing. Yeah I know people have paid in to it all their working lives.  All I can say to them is sorry.  As you will read later, people 45 and below will lose everything they have currently paid into the system as well.  I know this is socialism at its finest, and I hate it, but it is the only way that I can see how to dismantle a failed system and still maintain some compassion even if some that are receiving the benefits are undeserving because they acted irresponsibly or they did not plan properly. 

 

All those under 45, they would no longer pay SS and medicare taxes. They will be ineligible for either because the time they retire those programs will no longer exist.  Ages 45 - 55 can either opt in or out at reduced and means tested benefits.  For those currently 55 and above, the programs maintain the current level of benefits, but once again, they will be means tested.

 

As far as cutting other governments programs, departments, agencies, laws, and regulations, I am all for it.  I honestly believe that you could cut the federal government by 50 - 70%, cut taxes for those that pay them, allow truly free markets to work, and most people would be much better off.  Everything that is cut or done away with can go towards paying off our debt, and fund the phasing out period of SS and Medicare.

 

I know this might make a few people mad, and it is pretty harsh.  If you are an illegal immigrant, you get absolutely nothing.  I don't care if you have paid taxes into the system or not.  You violated our laws, and in some cases committed a felony through identity theft.  Since everyone would take a hit under this plan, they have to as well.  They should consider what they paid in as rent. If they become naturalized, then they start at zero and the same age conditions that I mentioned above apply.

 

As I said at the being, we can debate what to do and how to do it until we are blue in the face.  In the end, nothing of real significance is going to happen until the government is forced to stop printing checks.

Edited February 27, 2013 by mav

[diablo982]

As far as cutting other governments programs, departments, agencies, laws, and regulations, I am all for it. I honestly believe that you could cut the federal government by 50 - 70%, cut taxes for those that pay them, allow truly free markets to work, and most people would be much better off. Everything that is cut or done away with can go towards paying off our debt, and fund the phasing out period of SS and Medicare.

The problem with phasing out 50-70% of the federal government is what part can you live without? Maybe get rid of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or Agency for International Development? No problem, that's one percent. To get to the real budget drainers, are you willing to reduce the air traffic controllers by 70%? How about getting rid of most of the food inspectors? Health and Safety inspectors too? While I may not have total confidence in government, I have even less confidence in corporations "doing the right thing" and policing themselves.

Which brings me back to sequestration. Reducing the budget would not be such a problem if it wasn't universally applied percentage wise to all the agencies. There is no reason we should have to furlough Forest Service firefighters because the Forest Service took a five percent hit, while our aid to Pakistan is only reduced by an equal five percent. If these asshats in Washington could come to an agreement, we could still slash the budget and keep Americans employed. Edited February 27, 2013 by diablo982

[npgunner]

I don't think phasing out "50-70%" of the .gov is a problem and quite frankly; seems to be the only viable option. Don't misunderstand me though, I'm not so disillusioned as to believe SOME of the services provided by the .gov aren't necessary to society. I just am of the opinion that if you take those jobs away from the .gov; the ones truly necessary to maintain societal order will flourish in the private sector. Do you really think airports will work without air traffic controllers? I don't. But I don't think without stupid regulation and oversight fees; airports could afford to hire them privately. Most likey the airport and the controller would be happier in this position. Just because we want to take away things from the government doesn't mean we want to get rid of them; just put them back into the control of the people; and away from the idiots we've elected into office.

[Jonnin]

I was not throwing stones, I was simply observing that in many cases, SS money is effectively going to people in their early 30s who have moved back in with momma.

 

SS needs to be optional, and a straight you get out what you put in + interest earned. 

Medicare I approve of and will continue to do so until a number of other things have been reformed first (malpractice law, to start).

Edited February 27, 2013 by Jonnin

[RobertNashville]

...Which brings me back to sequestration. Reducing the budget would not be such a problem if it wasn't universally applied percentage wise to all the agencies. There is no reason we should have to furlough Forest Service firefighters because the Forest Service took a five percent hit, while our aid to Pakistan is only reduced by an equal five percent. If these asshats in Washington could come to an agreement, we could still slash the budget and keep Americans employed.

As I understand this "terrible sequestration" is does NOT apply equally to the entire budget; the Congress and the White House in their infinite wisdom didn't do it that way; two-thirds of the Federal Budget (well, the continuing resolutions budget since the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over four years) is totally exempt from these pretend cuts and naturally, Obama and his cronies will cut what scares people the most (i.e. planes running into each other, people dying of food poisoning).
 
IT'S ALL F*****G HOGWASH.

[mav]

I don't think phasing out "50-70%" of the .gov is a problem and quite frankly; seems to be the only viable option. Don't misunderstand me though, I'm not so disillusioned as to believe SOME of the services provided by the .gov aren't necessary to society. I just am of the opinion that if you take those jobs away from the .gov; the ones truly necessary to maintain societal order will flourish in the private sector. Do you really think airports will work without air traffic controllers? I don't. But I don't think without stupid regulation and oversight fees; airports could afford to hire them privately. Most likey the airport and the controller would be happier in this position. Just because we want to take away things from the government doesn't mean we want to get rid of them; just put them back into the control of the people; and away from the idiots we've elected into office.

 

That is correct.  There are some useful roles that the government plays, and like you, I feel those roles could be done better and cheaper if they were in the hands of the private sector.

 

I hope nobody misunderstands my intent.  I am not advocating anarchy.  Government does have some legitimate functions, but the problem arises when government is left unchecked to work outside of its constitutional limits.  When government goes beyonds its constitutional bounds and gets involved in some industry and screws things up, its answer to the problem is always more government.  It will continue to grow until it reaches the point where it is in, or controls, everything.

 

We are currently $16 plus trillion in debt.  At the end of Obama's second term, the number will be $23 trillion.  I don't want to even mention unfunded liabilites. Where is the money going to come from?

 

I see only three options for the future of this country, barring war, natural disaster, or some pandemic.  The first is dismantling the behemoth to a level where we can start paying off our debt and leave the government enough money to operate under its consititutional limitations.  In order to do that most of the social programs will have to be phased out of existence.  We will also have to have cuts to the military, cut all foreign aid, cut congressional pay and benefits/retirement, eliminate entire departments and agencies, etc...  The sooner this is done, the easier it will be on everybody.  Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.  There are not enough politicians with the courage, integrity, or intelligence to do this.

 

More than likely one of the two following scenarios will happen.  The government is going to kick the can further down the road until a breaking point is reached.  At that point, government will have no choice but to make drastic and immediate cuts.  All of those that were dependent or have their lives subsidized by the government will be cut off.  I would imagine if that were to occur that things would get pretty nasty really quick.

 

The other option under that scenario is that the government takes control of everything, which I believe is the more likely scenario.  They will decide who gets what, how much they (they includes businesses) can make, what kind of medical care they receive, where they live, what they can do, what they can eat, etc...  If that happens (actually it has been happening for years), I am certain that there will be some that will rebel against such action, and it also will get pretty nasty.

 

We can either take some pain now or hold off and take greater pain in the future.  Either way, everybody is going to have to endure some of it.  If I had my choice, I will take the pain now.

Edited February 27, 2013 by mav

[Defender]

I saw a report this morning online that DHS is releasing thousands of illegals being held in local jails, due to  sequestration...

[RobertNashville]

...

One thing you didn't mention, there are several trigger events that could cause a complete economic collapse even if the government starts to turn around and do what it needs to do.  What I'm saying is, even if we/the government does the right thing (which is unlikely I grant you), it may all be for nothing.

Two examples, if the world starts valuing/trading oil in something other than dollars as that is one of the few things that is propping up our currency now even as we devalue it by monetizing our debt.

Another would be a rise in interest rates just to their typical, historic levels which would mean that most of the revenue that government takes it would have to be spent just to pay the interest on the massive debt we already have.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think we'll ever have a chance to worry about armed rebellion because if we don't change course and quickly, I think we are looking toward a time when simply staying alive will be our primary concern.

[Slasher]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/26/dhs-to-release-thousands-illegal-immigrants-blaming-budget-cuts/

 

This is what Obama is willing to do to prevent the sequester. Unbelievable.

If they are illegal why are we not sending them back to where they are legal?

[mav]

Because certain parties would lose a voting bloc.

 

If they are illegal why are we not sending them back to where they are legal?

[DWARREN123]

First cuts should be elected and appointed government personnel!

Can't get it right then no pay until this crap is fixed!

Edited February 28, 2013 by DWARREN123

[kieefer]

First cuts should be elected and appointed government personnel!

Can't get it right then no pay until this crap is fixed!

 

Whatever cut to their salary takes place it will most likely get reimbursed later on and the crap never gets fixed.

[Garufa]

If this monumental event does in fact occur it won't last more than a week at best.  Monday bills will be introduced then passed, hands will shake and everyone will declare a victory by passing new stopgap spending measures.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Garufa

[Guest 556or762]

If this monumental event does in fact occur it won't last more than a week at best.  Monday bills will be introduced then passed, hands will shake and everyone will declare a victory by passing new stopgap spending measures.

I truly think that is what they are planning, by 'they' I mean both parties, 'they' want everyone to panic and worry about being unemployed, then "they" can pass more spending and look like heroes to the Moron Masses! ("moron masses" is my name for those on "the dime") ("the dime" is my name for govt assistance) (govt assistance is "their" name for paying off voters)(voters is "thier" name for the "moron Masses") See its cyclical....look at me pullin out a big word!

[G27]

[enfield]

Whatever cut to their salary takes place it will most likely get reimbursed later on and the crap never gets fixed.

 

You've got that right.  They deal the cards and it's their deck.  What a deal!