<p>Too late for me to argue ethics, but try me tomorrow, galoisien.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even Republicans figured out cutting the Departmet of Education is a horrible idea. </p>
<p>Why not re-build New Orleans? Because it has hurricanes. Well California has earthquakes. There’s tornados in the middle of the country. Pretty much everywhere in the world has some form of natural disasters.</p>
<p>As for 15 percent budget cuts, can you point to actual programs that you want to get rid of , or does it just sound like a good number.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it’s 10 feet UNDER sea level!!</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060186694-post22.html]#22[/url]”>quote</a>…As for 15 percent budget cuts, can you point to actual programs that you want to get rid of , or does it just sound like a good number…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[ul]
[<em>] All the billions spent on federally funded [‘bike</a> paths’](<a href=“http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7939]'bike”>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7939)…if people want bike paths have the states fund them.
[</em>]Via the Heritage Foundation: [A</a> Strategy to Eliminate Wasteful Federal Spending](<a href=“http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/HL806.cfm]A”>http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/HL806.cfm)
[<em>]State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (about [$6</a> billion annually](<a href=“http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=4&ind=235]$6”>http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=4&ind=235))…We already have Medicaid and SCHIP is used for families over the poverty line…sometimes as much as [300%</a> over the poverty line](<a href=“http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1627.cfm]300%”>http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1627.cfm). That’s [$82,000</a> for a family of 4 in some states](<a href=“http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22471.html]$82,000”>http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22471.html).
[</em>]Via Washington Post: [GAO</a> Report Points to Pentagon Waste](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36544-2005Jan25.html]GAO”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36544-2005Jan25.html)
[li] Via CBS News: [Meet</a> Congress’ “King Of Pork”](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/assignment_america/main3994689.shtml]Meet”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/assignment_america/main3994689.shtml):[/li]
[li]Via Arizona Tribune: [Cotton</a> growers gain research site for free](<a href=“http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/54099]Cotton”>http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/54099)[/li]
[li] Via Heritage Foundation: [Top</a> 10 Examples of Government Waste](<a href=“http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm]Top”>http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm):</p>[/li]
<p>
[</em>] Many, many more in this vein
[/ol]</p>
<p>StitchinTime, let’s cut the programs you use first, OK? We’ll start with the dams, roads and highways near your house. We’ll cut all funding which helps your police, fire and EMTs. We’ll eliminate the border patrol. Anything else that benefits you that you’re willing to cut, so you can self-fund it? Or are you just opposed to government spending that helps people other than yourself?</p>
<p>There’s waste in every budget. There’s waste in my household budget - and in yours, too. Yes, we need to keep fighting waste (and fraud) in government spending. And no, we’ll never succeed 100%. But the idea that suddenly, some yahoo with a website is going to figure out a way to balance the budget by eliminating “only unnecessary” government spending - like no one has ever thought of that before - is childish.</p>
<p>^^^
<em>Applauding</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really hope you see the irony in this and the thread title/OP.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060188894-post25.html]#25[/url]”>quote</a> StitchinTime, let’s cut the programs you use first, OK? We’ll start with the dams, roads and highways near your house…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>History has shown us that histrionics and hyperbole are not a substitute for rational public policy.</p>
<p>I’m with you stitch. If only we can keep politics, neo cons, neo liberals, cronys, nepotism, revolving door executives, out of the the process. </p>
<p>limburger for everyone.</p>
<p>Cutting your programs is a rational public policy from my standpoint, Stitch. Unfortunately, we have this whole system of government which decides what is funded and what isn’t, and they don’t seem inclined to just cut the programs that benefit you - any more than they seem to be inclined to make the cuts you feel should be made because you don’t think they’re worthwhile. And somehow I think you’ve missed history’s actual lesson on this subject. Anyone who can write stuff like “15% across the board budget cuts…most departments won’t even feel it” and lecture others about “histrionics and hyperbole” has an interesting perspective on the world.</p>
<p>By the way, I did notice that your suggestion about bike paths simply shifts the taxpayer’s burden from one branch of government to another, saving nothing. Good work. :rolleyes:</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060189571-post30.html]#30[/url]”>quote</a> …By the way, I did notice that your suggestion about bike paths simply shifts the taxpayer’s burden from one branch of government to another, saving nothing. Good work. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Au contraire…it saves federal dollars to “pay for the war”…the original question of this thread.</p>
<p>This goes to the very fundamental reason of why we have states and a federal government…and here we clearly know which came first. The states created the federal government. </p>
<p>If the argument is being made that the federal bureaucracy is to be involved in the minutia of local bike paths then why have state and local governments at all? The spending policies implemented by Washington today are in stark contrast to the original philosophy found in the [10th</a> Amendment](<a href=“Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia”>Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia):
</p>
<p>State (and local) spending is closest to the citizens that beneift from that spending where it can be monitored. So by all means, build the bike paths and pave them with gold if that’s what people want…but have them voted on and funded locally by the citizens that will benefit from them.</p>
<p>If any of these proposals were serious, it would have been acted out if it was such a slam-dunk. I am pretty sure many Republicans read the Heritage Foundation (always credible :)</p>