|
bounty44 -> RE: The Budget (3/8/2015 10:10:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
if I believe the role of government should be minimal, then I am all for say, eliminating a tremendous amount of federal agencies like the department of education, the department of energy, hud, etc. as well as scaling back on entitlements in some way.
Yes, you go do that in the simulations at the major business schools across the globe. Everyone one of them will show you the same thing happens: The United States economy falters....AND....DIES! Tens of millions of Americans are placed out of work. That's not pushing fear, that's what the simulations show. And it lasts for easily a decade if not two. And that is assuming things go 'our way'. Unemployment would be a comfortable 12-17%, with a high number of underemployed Americans working two or three jobs. People just got out of a recession doing just that for a few years; and they will say it was a shit storm.
How many of those people would want to do it for 10-20 years with your method? I doubt a single one of them would sign off on the idea.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
if I believe that the primary role of government should be the protection of its citizens, then I am loathe to do anything that might effect the military's budget and i'll look for budget balancing things elsewhere.
An how does the government protect citizens when the unemployment is 12-18%? For over a decade?
Or two major disasters in one calender year in two different spots in America? Say a major earthquake that does tremendous damage From San Diego to San Francisco? While a Category 5 hurricane hits Florida and rides up the coast line to Maine? And neither of those are counting the numerous tornadoes that thunder across the Midwest. Or the other smaller hurricanes that hit either coastline. Or the deep freeze New England just experienced this last few months. Or the severe drought in the Southwest states.
And we haven't even gotten into a man-made disaster like a nuclear planet melting down, or a terrorist attack on the nation.
All of these are very real. All of them cost the government quite a bit to handle, sort out, and fix. Now, the government, under your viewpoint, has to do all this with a sharply less amount of resources. And when they don't perform like they do now, who bitches the loudest?
PEOPLE LIKE YOU!
Lets lower the power and ability of the EPA; that way our backyards can look like China's and Russia's. There are many places in both of those nations that are just toxic and hazardous for anyone to live there. Changing the areas so radically has real effects on the human population that leave near to them. Medical science has hundreds of thousands of examples already.
You want to play these little games and have NO FUCKING IDEA of the damages they will cause. Likewise, when they do happen, people like you slink back into the shadows to hide. Because if people found that your the one whom emptied their wallet, allowed their kids to get dreadfully sick, and have a tough time living in life; they will hunt you down! They will extract revenge upon you.
I've seen the simulations at MIT. None of them are pretty. None of them work for America. Even when things are gradually lowered over a decade or two. Unless you can point out some super solid evidence to say otherwise. I just can not support what your suggesting here. My nation's continual health is more important than your uninformed and uneducated political viewpoint every day of the week!
if you go back and read carefully, you will see I am not suggesting anything, I was merely giving examples to illustrate how talking about the role of the government is appropriate to discussing what we'd cut. I hope that actually makes you feel a little bit humbled.
and for what its worth---between the name calling and insults, its increasingly difficult to read your posts in general, and the ones to me in particular. please stop.
|
|
|
|
