Where would you cut government first?

1. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   I ask this because I would like some input from my fellow hubbers on this issue.  Speaking for myself, I would start with cutting the office staff of our congressman and senators, then I would look at consolidating congressional districts and eliminating congressional seats. 
   
   Why should we have so many representatives if they only work 90 days out of the year and spend the other 275 on vacation or campaigning for reelection? Must be nice to get paid six figures a year for doing next to nothing, huh?
   
   There's a good chunk of tax dollars that could be saved with the two above suggestions.  We all have to make sacrifices folks.  Leadership rule number one:  Don't make your constituents do anything you wouldn't do.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I would begin with the military budget. Then I would go to work on Medicare with the goal of reducing payments for unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests (e.g., CT-Scans) and medical procedures (e.g., back surgery) and for profit medicine, limiting reimbursement to procedures that are actually necessary and effective (not easy to do). Health care costs will eat us up if something isn't done to slow the skyrocketing costs.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed, Ralph. Most people don't realize that he USA, with no hostile neighbors, spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world -COMBINED! That's right - add expenditures by China and Russia and England and France .. etc and the US alone spends more than all of them combined. As a veteran, I believe in maintaining a national defense force, but what we spend is insane.
         
         It's ben a sacred cow that no one will discuss. That needs to end.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'd try cutting (out) lobbyists first

      replyreport
   3. 83

      Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I would start by cutting their pay to minimum wage
      
      Leadership rule number one:  Don't make your constituents do anything you wouldn't do.
      
      Would they be willing to campaign so hard for re-election IF they were working for minimum wage?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         JeniferDposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Considering these incumbents receive 'contributions' (bribes) from special interest groups, I'd say cut their tax-payer supported salaries entirely and make the incumbents work for F-R-E-E. 

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Even better

            replyreport
2. 61

   William R. Wilsonposted 14 years ago

   I think our tax forms should have a place to indicate where we want our money to go.  That way people would vote directly, and cut the congress out.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      William I am about to fall out of my chair. I agree 100%

      replyreport
   2. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That would be an unmitigated disaster.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      sowhatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah that ought to work great.   No problems in that thinking.
      You could be the leader of this movement.  I'll watch.   I promise.

      replyreport
3. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   Excellent start guys.  Let's keep this going.  How about we OUTLAW lobbying?
   
   
   Oh, BTW:  Happy Easter! 

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      With a liberal-leaning Supreme Court that won't construe free-spech to mean unlimited funding by big businessfor bought-and-paid-for candidates.
      
      Limit all funding to candidates (with an individual cap) to persons and limited PACS funded ONLY by people (with individual caps).

      replyreport
      1. 67

         AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think it is supremely naive to think that a liberal-leaning *anything* has ever really stood up to corporate and other vested interests. The history of the Democrats in America is one of compliance with the military-industrial complex alongside monopolistic, corporatistic, Hyekistic interests. The Republicans have been no better, but I think it is a mistake to assume that liberals automatically seek to disempower the overly-powerful. The evidence is not there for such a belief.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Have you read the reasonong of the Supreme Court decision that equated cash with free-speech and struck down limits?
            
            Did you notice that it was the conservatives of the SC who voted for unlimited power in financing elections by corporate interests and it was the liberal minority who wanted to uphold restrictions on campaign contributions?
            
            The democrats in Congress are sucking up the K-street lobbyist money. True. But the liberal ideology is inclined to put limits on the power of big money and the conservative philosophy is inclined to grant unlimited power.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               BS

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Not BS - from
                  
                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/2 … 31227.html
                  
                  "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."
                  
                  Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, for years a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, called the decision a "disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court."
                  
                  "The Supreme Court majority has acted recklessly to free up corporations to use their immense, aggregate corporate wealth to flood federal elections and buy government influence. The Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13 trillion and profits of $605 billion during the last election cycle," Wertheimer wrote...
                  
                  --------------------------------
                  
                  SabOH may not want to admit that conservatives are the puppets of big business, but the evidence says otherwise.

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL! He says "No BS" then cites the huffington post! LOL!
                     
                     Both parties take lobby money and both are as inclined to do so. Just can't avoid the liberal hypocrisy.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree. Is it possible? God it hurts my throat.
                        
                        First of all, anyone who has spent more than a week reading the Huffington Post knows that she leans towards the Democrat end of things. Second of all, yes, it is hypocritical to pretend that only Republicans take money.
                        
                        So here is the question. In real terms, in terms of real politics, real things that affect real people, is "hypocrisy" (which I am admitting takes place) on this issue of corporate influence an important thing to be focusing on... or the FACT of the lobbying ITSELF. This is not a trick question. I'm wondering if you have a reasonably thought out answer, that is an attempt at objectivity rather than taking sides. I am open

                        replyreport
                     2. 77

                        Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Sab Oh prefers to get his facts from YouTube

                        replyreport
            2. 67

               AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I agree that "generally" there is a "tendency" for Democrats to suck up less to corporate interests than exists among Republicans. Nevertheless, in the Big Picture, I'd be very, very surprised if the Democrats come out to be squeaky clean, when all accounts are taken. What happened to Obama's promise to break the backs of lobbyists, for example...
               
               ...And frankly, unfortunately, it's not what you say it's what you do. And therefore, liberal ideology versus conservative ideology is all very well, but what happens on the ground is what matters.
               
               Britain for example has a "Socialist" Party in power whose top tax bracket is ten percent (ten percent!) lower than it was under ultra-Reaganite Margaret Thatcher. Under Thatcher university tuition remained free; under the "Socialists" it has become exorbitant.

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "I agree that "generally" there is a "tendency" for Democrats to suck up less to corporate interests than exists among Republicans."
                  
                  FALSE
                  
                  
                  The past year has seen more lobbying money in DC than ever before and more than half of it went to democrats.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Well you cannot say "FALSE" to whether I agree with something or not, because you cannot see inside my head, but instead of grubbing around in the muck for something to pick on, how about agreeing with the statement I made that neither party is particularly "honourable."
                     
                     Let me show you how it is done:
                     
                     Oh, yes, well, if what you say is true, that the Dems are sucking up over half of lobbying funds in the last year, then I rescind my statement.
                     
                     See, it's really not that difficult.

                     replyreport
         2. 60

            sowhatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed.   Switching scammers might just work.

            replyreport
4. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   I agree we should cut the costs of our miltary. We should back to our own borders and close them and gaurd only America. That will save us a fortune! The key would be a missle defense system and no intrusions into country illegally.
   
   The next big step is to cut social progams to Americans of a working age. Put them to work on a national service program even if its picking up trash. We can't afford to pay people to sit on their ass and make babies, everyone must work!
   
   Force industries to develop alternative fuels, like Brazil, to push towards energy independence. Then work on a real effective system of mass transit for all of America. Instead of ridiculous local projects that are plagued with cost overruns and inefficientcy.
   
   End benefits for career politicians. Make them be the people that actually live in a district or region. The ones guilty of bad behavior earn prison time.
   
   Ceos of buisness and industry held to a Higher standard of ethical and moral behavior. To justify their salaries and bonuses. If they are found to be corrupt or endangering the American economy they also should earn jail time.
   
   Churches that use the pulpit for political platforms should lose exempt status. Political groups acting in an illegal manner should also earn jail time.
   
   My thoughts only.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'll say this for these forums... it is a welcome antidote to the mainstream media (conservative, liberal, whatever) and its attempt to paint everyone into corners, such that there are supposedly two opposing camps where everyone's beliefs line up...
      
      What you just wrote, in other words, is a fascinating mix of what is, to me, the fantastically silly and the fantastically sensible. All of this talk about "conservatives do this" and "liberals do that" is what pisses me off... Go figure, we are individuals capable of blending ideas from across the political spectrum.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         StormRyderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         
         This is about the most sensible thing I have ever read in any of the forums! All the finger pointing and BS needs to end...And if everyone was honest they would say both parties really suck and have little concern for the people of this country.
         
         And I would start cutting by stopping the self voted raise for elected memebers of the senate and congress...Let the people of the states they represent determine if they warrant a pay increase!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Or even better, let the people vote for their own pay raises every year.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               StormRyderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I could go for that!

               replyreport
   2. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "I agree we should cut the costs of our miltary. We should back to our own borders and close them and gaurd only America"
      
      That is suicidally myopic (and thankfully will never happen)
      
      
      "The next big step is to cut social progams to Americans of a working age. Put them to work on a national service program even if its picking up trash."
      
      That would cost us even more money and make the government bigger and more intrusive. Bad idea.
      
      "Force industries to ..."
      
      Any idea starting with those three words is likely to be a very bad one
      
      
      "politicians. Make them be the people that actually live in a district or region. The ones guilty of bad behavior earn prison time."
      
      This is already the case.
      
      
      "If they are found to be corrupt or endangering the American economy they also should earn jail time."
      
      If they, or anyone else, breaks the law they should earn jail time. The rest is a ridiculously bad idea.
      
      
      "Churches that use the pulpit for political platforms should lose exempt status. Political groups acting in an illegal manner should also earn jail time."
      
      Why not just come out and say you want your own dictatorship and be done with it? The hell with the Constitution, right?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         We can protect only America and if someone decides to challenge that we should deliver a knock-out blow to them so the world see's that was a bad idea.
         
         It's better to pay people for doing nothing but making babies? I think not!
         
         If you don't regulate industry you will have greed dictating policy, not good.
         
         Not so! We have a whole core group of professional politicians who only fight for a seat any seat they can remotely claim as their own home, here in Sugarland is a case in point and Hillarys seat in New york.
         
         Bonuses from bailout money was nothing less than criminal! Bonuses for ruining our economy or for causing their buisness to fail, are you serious?
         
         Where in the constitution does it state religious oranizations can preach politics and maintain a tax-free ststus? Remember we can't preach morality and ethics unless we walk the talk. Acorn leaders don't be long in jail? C'mon you know better than that!
         
         These are my opinions and I have right to them and you have a right to disagree, now thats Constitutional.

         replyreport
   3. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Closing the borders certainly would make Canada safer.

      replyreport
5. 61

   sooner than laterposted 14 years ago

   welfare

   replyreport
6. 66

   awareposted 14 years ago

   foreign aide

   replyreport
7. 66

   goldenpathposted 14 years ago

   The Senate.  There is no need of this group of corrupt men and women.  We can hold to the House, but the Senate can go.
   
   There are a host of other groups, offices and conglomerates that can go as well, but will not thanks to Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and others a hundred years ago.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      JeniferDposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Love the idea. Maybe we can spread it around and watch how many of the senate has a coronary thinking the senate could be eliminated altogether to save tax dollars.  Brilliant!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Because the billionaires of so many years ago highjacked the American press, and subsequently the American opinion, great powerhouses have been set up since to rule over our prosperity and freedom.  Among these are the Federal Reserve.  This concoction is a travesty to the American people and was designed to line the pockets of certain heirs of banking institutions.  They are the principle causes of the depressions in the market - that we, as the people, will commit to more credit from them.  These heirs, who govern the country, are also the principle reasons why the United States have chosen the most expensive wars to participate in over the past hundred years rather than the battles that are sure to be won swiftly closer to home.  The closer wars would be unprofitable for the Reserve and other banking institutions.  The distant wars, although noble on the part of our valiant military, keep the American financial prosperity in check and at their discretion.  It is also beneficial to them because they can easily control public sentiment through their bought media, which was purchased so long ago under the cloak and dagger umbrella.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You are right, they are called the Bilderberg Group. And the Fed was created by some of these Bozos. Check out the book " The Creature from Jekyll Island " by E Howard Griffin it is enlightening.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Also, ready Mr. Oscar Callaway's Congressional Record February 9, 1917.  Interesting read on the press and public opinion.  It's an easy find on the internet.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               JeniferDposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yup.  I was going to say the same thing.  The Bilderbergers are just out for one thing:  God-like status.  Wealth and influence isn't enough when these wealthy devils want our souls, too.  That Global dominion idea isn't in the best interest of anybody that isn't in their little billionaire's book club, especially when genocide is involved! These idiots want 90% of the human populace on this planet exterminated and the remaining 10% enslaved.  Sounds like a B-Grade Science Fiction flick, doesn't it?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Indeed it does.

                  replyreport
8. 66

   RKHenryposted 14 years ago

   I would cut all Congressional paychecks to min. wage.  I'd make them have to work just as hard, as the average American worker does on min. wage.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I like it !

      replyreport
   2. 56

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's great. Like we don't have enough corruption already.

      replyreport
9. 0

   chasingcarsposted 14 years ago

   Cutting the staffers would be counterproductive; they do all the work.  I would sue all the politicians who took money from the lobbyists to foul up our government and get our money back from the salaries of the politicians who took lobbyist money to sell our government and contributed not one solid, decent thing to promote the greater good of this country.  The government is not bad:  we are the government.  We should do a better job of, as Obama said, draining the swamp of congressional swamp things.
        Then, I would stop all G...D....(ed) wars and divert that money to paying down the deficit and retraining soldiers and out-of-work citizens to get jobs. Just cutting out the everlasting and evil wars we wage would solve most of our problems.

   replyreport