U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-31-2014, 11:10 AM
 
17,681 posts, read 12,330,835 times
Reputation: 12938

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I wonder if you bothered to actually think through what it would mean to reduce government to 1/4 of its current size.

You'd have to start by abolishing social security, medicare, and medicaid. Those items, plus interest on the national debt are about 75% of all spending by the federal government.

I guess we could stop funding environmental protection, the national park service, the forest service, and the bureau of land management which manage most recreational lands in the USA.

If you read the article you cited closely, its not an argument for eliminating most federal government. Its an argument for granting auditors, under the Inspector General, greater powers to deal with waste in government. That seems like a reasonable agenda and one I could support.

I personally want social security, medicare, environmental protection, and national parks. I don't want a government so limited that all it does is pay for a national defense and the light bill in Washington, D.C.

Honestly, you'd probably be lynched by the large percentage of people receiving social security and medicare if you tried to abolish these items. So, I wouldn't waste my time going down that path. No, better to actually think through a rational approach to dealing with waste in government like the author of the article you cited has done.


I'm not sure why you'd lump interest on the national debt with ss/Medicare/caid. Net interest expense is less than 8% of spending
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2014, 11:15 AM
 
17,681 posts, read 12,330,835 times
Reputation: 12938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
This type of mentality drives me insane. "It is only 1/2 of 1%, so big whoop" is the refrain from many who either have a horse in the race, or are just so apathetic they make excuses.

The only way to reduce and try to effectively prevent it in the future is to treat even the tiniest theft/fraud/willful waste as something very significant.

Remember that 1% here, 2% there, adds up. Just because our economy is huge is no excuse to minimize the amounts as insignificant.

Have you ever run a business? There are variances in budget vs spending and there is waste, always
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Central IL
13,553 posts, read 7,251,181 times
Reputation: 31418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
This type of mentality drives me insane. "It is only 1/2 of 1%, so big whoop" is the refrain from many who either have a horse in the race, or are just so apathetic they make excuses.

The only way to reduce and try to effectively prevent it in the future is to treat even the tiniest theft/fraud/willful waste as something very significant.

Remember that 1% here, 2% there, adds up. Just because our economy is huge is no excuse to minimize the amounts as insignificant.
No - putting processes in place to eliminate waste cost money themselves - at some point there are diminishing returns so that that cost to prevent the waste of $1 costs far more than that whereas it may be pretty easy to prevent the waste of $100.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Clown School
9,999 posts, read 4,275,263 times
Reputation: 11558
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
The article is awfully vague about waste, but here is one thing that I know. Unless the government burned the money, it was spent on something. That something was produced by a private company, and if the government spends less, it buys less from the private contractors.

For example: About a year ago a teen conducted an experiment in which he concluded that the US government could save nearly $500 million in ink and paper if it printed all of its documents in Garamond font instead of Times New Roman. Let's assume that his conclusions are valid (they probably aren't valid, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they are.)

If the government spends $500 million less on paper and ink, then:
a. the companies that produce the paper and ink will see a drop in sales and revenue.
b. when revenues go down, companies may have to lay off people
c. when people are laid off, they rely on unemployment and other government benefits.
d. laid off people spend less and the decrease in spending hits restaurants, grocers, etc.

It is not a national tragedy, but in a city or town where the paper industry or the ink/toner industry is the major employer, it will have important repercussions.
This is theoretically true, but if the government wasn't spending that on ink/paper, it's not like the money saved would sit under a mattress. Ideally, if all the money was directed towards improving roads, establishing job training programs, etc, not only would this employ many people, it'd likely be many more people in many more industries. And not only that, those people would be working to make the country a better place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 03:25 PM
 
1,059 posts, read 921,407 times
Reputation: 982
i would've guessed 44 billion but those numbers are close to my findings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Purgatory
6,317 posts, read 4,474,120 times
Reputation: 9733
To put 1% in perspective:

If someone bought a coffee a day for $2, that is about $700 per year. So if someone makes about 70k per year, that is about 1% of income.

My point is, 1% is not so outrageous as those who have ran businesses can attest to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 10:50 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,591,434 times
Reputation: 15436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums View Post
To put 1% in perspective:

If someone bought a coffee a day for $2, that is about $700 per year. So if someone makes about 70k per year, that is about 1% of income.

My point is, 1% is not so outrageous as those who have ran businesses can attest to.
Unless it's the other party that's responsible for the waste.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top