Official: Obama wants agency spending cut by $100M

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama White House zeroed in Monday on ways to slice the budget by $100 million, a fraction of the federal deficit reported for March alone.

Just back from a Latin America summit, President Barack Obama was ready to "challenge his Cabinet" on budgetary savings, the White House said in a statement released as he convened his first formal meeting of department and agency heads.

A senior administration official, discussing the closed-door meeting only on grounds of anonymity, said Obama planned to remind Cabinet members that families across the country are struggling to make ends meet and need to know the government is spending their money wisely.

The federal deficit for March alone was $192.3 billion, and $100 million would represent a minuscule portion of that sum, roughly one-twentieth of 1 percent. Obama in February brought forward a $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1, a proposal that would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

Earlier this month, both the House and Senate passed companion budget plans giving Obama and his Capitol Hill allies a key victory, but 20 House Democrats from GOP-leaning areas abandoned him on the final vote because of unhappiness over deficits.

The Cabinet meeting came just days after a series of "Tea Party" demonstrations across the country in which protesters challenged the administration over it's massive spending to help pull the country and its financial system out of an economic nose dive unseen in decades.

Even among budget cuts cited in a newly released White House summary, a considerable proportion of the savings would occur over a period of years.

It pointed out projected cuts in office supplies and computer software at the Department of Homeland Services, for instance, noting that the agency spends $100 million a year on this "but virtually none of the supplies are purchased through agreements that leverage the department's collective buying power."

Thus, it said, DHS estimates that it could save up to $51 million over five years by purchasing in bulk.

It said that $62 million could be saved over a 15-year lease term if the Agriculture Department were to combine roughly 1,500 employees from seven leased locations into a single facility by early 2011.

The White House summary also said that $6.7 million could be saved over the first five years by having U.S. attorney offices and the U.S. Marshals Offices' Asset Forfeiture program convert publication of forfeiture notices from newspapers to the Internet.

The worksheet also said that $5 million a year could be saved by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by consolidating embassy posts.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090420/D97MAHU80.html

1/20th of 1% of MARCH 2009's DEFICIT.

Jesus fucking Christ...

[Apotheosis]

Hey, he's reducing government spending on a deficit he created.. he's keeping his promise to reduce spending.. give him a break PB.

[Methais]

Hey, he's reducing government spending on a deficit he created.. he's keeping his promise to reduce spending.. give him a break PB.

You forgot the italics.

[Parkbandit]

Hey, he's reducing government spending on a deficit he created.. he's keeping his promise to reduce spending.. give him a break PB.

The sad part is.. many people will see this as just that.. Obama cutting spending.

[Latrinsorm]

I think this can be interpreted another way, rather than comparing raw dollar amounts: what we want from our government is not no spending or minimal spending but least wasteful spending. If you (general) consider every dollar of the 3.6 trillion wasteful, you are essentially an idiot. Comparing money saved in these programs to total money spent is therefore disingenuous at best.

That all said, of course the dollar amount is not terribly impressive for a federal government - that's not the point. The American economy is not based on dollars, it's based on feelings. If people feel better, the economy will improve (c.f. Ronald Reagan, FDR, etc.). As such, gestures like these oughtn't be measured in dollars.

[Parkbandit]

If anyone in the country feels better about the economy because Obama cut 1/20th of 1% of March's deficit, you are essentially an idiot.

Of course gestures like this oughtn't be measured in dollars or percentages.. because when those facts are used, it makes Obama look like a fool. I can bet that there will be plenty of reports in the media tonight that will be "Obama is cutting waste (left over from the Bush administration!!!) in government spending" and very few will actually say what it really is.

[Mabus]

While I applaud cutting spending (even if just for political propaganda) the amount touted is less then Obama requested in earmarks for 2007.

This will make his diehard supporters cheer, fool a few people that don't know any better, and likely make the rest of us shake our heads and chuckle over the idiocy of the first two groups.

[radamanthys]

I'd like to see him cut out the ineffectual, unconstitutional, and unnecessary burdens. Like the department of education.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say "feels better about the economy", I said "feels better". Have we grown so bitter that a slightly contrived gesture can only be met with derision? I don't think so, and apparently President Obama doesn't either:

"It is [a drop in the bucket]," the president said. "None of these things alone are going to make the difference but cumulatively, they make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone."

[Warriorbird]

I'd like to see him cut out the ineffectual, unconstitutional, and unnecessary burdens. Like the department of education.

Let's cut schools adrift. That'll solve things. The states do it so well... I mean, look at No Child Left Behind's massive success!

Creating new cabinet agencies is not unconstitutional. Otherwise DHS would be too.

[Bhuryn]

Let's cut schools adrift. That'll solve things. The states do it so well... I mean, look at No Child Left Behind's massive success!

Creating new cabinet agencies is not unconstitutional. Otherwise DHS would be too.

No Child Left behind is just another reason to eliminate the federal godhand on public schools. States that commit to education are going to have successful schools. States that don't will fail regardless of the Federal DoEd existing or not. There is already a massive disparity between states when it comes to the quality of public schools so why keep something that's little more then a tax burden?

While you're at it you could probably cut out large chunks of the Dept Of Health and Department of Energy and reduce healthcare and energy costs overnight =P.

[Warriorbird]

I'm so excited about the results of eliminating portions of the Health Department.

'No Child Left Behind' was left to the states to administer. They did a wretchedly bad job of it.

We have states in this country that teach creationism. I'm really not thrilled by how well they'd do.

[Methais]

If people feel better, the economy will improve

Well then the government should stop all this bullshit wasteful spending. Then people will feel better and the economy will recover, right?

If they want the economy to recover, they need to gtfo the way.

[Latrinsorm]

Well then the government should stop all this bullshit wasteful spending. Then people will feel better and the economy will recover, right?Most people feel better when there have infrastructure, national defense, etc. What did Rocky do when he was fighting with Adrian (and yes, the entire federal government should be based on Sly Stallone movies)? He got into his car and DROVE FAST. What do you need to drive fast? ROADS.
If they want the economy to recover, they need to gtfo the way.Worked for Hoover and Carter, right?

[Methais]

Most people feel better when there have infrastructure, national defense, etc. What did Rocky do when he was fighting with Adrian (and yes, the entire federal government should be based on Sly Stallone movies)? He got into his car and DROVE FAST. What do you need to drive fast? ROADS.Worked for Hoover and Carter, right?

Oh right, I forgot that big government is the solution to all our problems, most of which were created by government, because they're so awesome at managing things efficiently.

My bad.

[Ignot]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama White House zeroed in Monday on ways to slice the budget by $100 million, a fraction of the federal deficit reported for March alone.

Just back from a Latin America summit, President Barack Obama was ready to "challenge his Cabinet" on budgetary savings, the White House said in a statement released as he convened his first formal meeting of department and agency heads.

A senior administration official, discussing the closed-door meeting only on grounds of anonymity, said Obama planned to remind Cabinet members that families across the country are struggling to make ends meet and need to know the government is spending their money wisely.

The federal deficit for March alone was $192.3 billion, and $100 million would represent a minuscule portion of that sum, roughly one-twentieth of 1 percent. Obama in February brought forward a $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1, a proposal that would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

Earlier this month, both the House and Senate passed companion budget plans giving Obama and his Capitol Hill allies a key victory, but 20 House Democrats from GOP-leaning areas abandoned him on the final vote because of unhappiness over deficits.

The Cabinet meeting came just days after a series of "Tea Party" demonstrations across the country in which protesters challenged the administration over it's massive spending to help pull the country and its financial system out of an economic nose dive unseen in decades.

Even among budget cuts cited in a newly released White House summary, a considerable proportion of the savings would occur over a period of years.

It pointed out projected cuts in office supplies and computer software at the Department of Homeland Services, for instance, noting that the agency spends $100 million a year on this "but virtually none of the supplies are purchased through agreements that leverage the department's collective buying power."

Thus, it said, DHS estimates that it could save up to $51 million over five years by purchasing in bulk.

It said that $62 million could be saved over a 15-year lease term if the Agriculture Department were to combine roughly 1,500 employees from seven leased locations into a single facility by early 2011.

The White House summary also said that $6.7 million could be saved over the first five years by having U.S. attorney offices and the U.S. Marshals Offices' Asset Forfeiture program convert publication of forfeiture notices from newspapers to the Internet.

The worksheet also said that $5 million a year could be saved by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by consolidating embassy posts.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090420/D97MAHU80.html

1/20th of 1% of MARCH 2009's DEFICIT.

Jesus fucking Christ...

I agree with cutting useless spending, even if it is a small amount, but shouldn't they be focusing on cutting big parts off the deficit first and leave the small stuff for later? If cutting office supplies is the best they have come up with so far then I'm not to impressed.

[Warriorbird]

Oh right, I forgot that big government is the solution to all our problems, most of which were created by government, because they're so awesome at managing things efficiently.

My bad.

I hear that doing absolutely nothing other than giving the government less incoming cash solves everything...

...if you like anarchy.

[Methais]

Golly, you're right. I forgot that a government passing massive spending bills without even reading it is considered fiscally responsible.

[Warriorbird]

Ignore the Republican record as hard as you can.

At least the Democrats are wasting the money on America.

[Methais]

Yeah, that totally justifies wasteful spending. Wasteful spending is still wasteful spending, no matter who's doing it or where it's being done.

Why is it whenever this comes up, it's justified with "Well look at how much Bush spent!", as if that makes it ok to do the same thing x10?

Obama wants to spend more than Presidents 1-43 spent combined.

So basically what you're saying is if the next President is a republican, and spends 10x as much as Obama does, it's okay because of how much Obama spent during his term? Or is it only acceptable if it's a democrat doing it?

[Apotheosis]

Most people feel better when there have infrastructure, national defense, etc. What did Rocky do when he was fighting with Adrian (and yes, the entire federal government should be based on Sly Stallone movies)? He got into his car and DROVE FAST. What do you need to drive fast? ROADS.Worked for Hoover and Carter, right?


You forgot to post in italics.


Basically, I'll make a simple diagram for you to point out the flaw in GOVERNMENT SPENDING HELPING THE ECONOMY


Item A

Taxpayer : ) -> $$$ -> Private Economy



Item B

Taxpayer : ( -> $$$ -> Government -> $ -> Private Economy





In Item A, Taxpayer has more $$ puts it into the private economy

In Item B, Taxpayer has $$$, but the government takes it, and after holding 6 bajillion committees on how the money should be funneled, redirects 10% of the original intake to where it should go while siphoning off 90% for other projects that have no bearing on the original intent of collection.


It does end up being more complicated then that, but we'll take baby steps.

[Latrinsorm]

Again, what I said was that token gestures can resonate and have deeper meaning with citizens than their face value might suggest. The government is always going to spend way way more than $100 million and always has. As I mentioned to Ganalon in some other thread, we're not economics robots - there's considerably more that goes into what makes a taxpayer : ) or : ( than tax rate or budget deficit or any number of which one can think.

It is totally irrelevant to my point how much this administration or any other spends, or how well it spends, or that deregulated capitalism has been repeatedly demonstrated as a sure path to economic catastrophe. What is relevant is that Americans have become increasingly divorced from a sense of fraternity with each other, and as a result have become increasingly disillusioned and cynical (c.f. this thread, e.g.). At the same time, we have grown immeasurably caught up in each others' futures, economic and otherwise. We're not a bunch of rugged individuals anymore (not that we ever were), we have to stop this worship of Adam Smithism. People aren't going to change because they ought to, people are going to change because they're inspired to.

[Apotheosis]

And my response to the symbolic "100 million", it's like adding insult to injury.. why not take actions that have an impact, like ending whole departments that have no purpose in the 21st century.....

to see the government taking meaningful action rather than taking a drop outta the bucket would do a lot more to instill confidence in the consumer..

[Daniel]

I'd like to see him cut out the ineffectual, unconstitutional, and unnecessary burdens. Like the department of education.

....

Serious?

People like you are why America is declining in the world.

[radamanthys]

....

Serious?

People like you are why America is declining in the world.

Yes, I am serious. I looked through the Dept. of Ed's budget. I could cut billions that would have zero short or long term impact on the economy.

And no, we're not. You're just a myopic jackass.

[Gan]

As I mentioned to Ganalon in some other thread, we're not economics robots - there's considerably more that goes into what makes a taxpayer : ) or : ( than tax rate or budget deficit or any number of which one can think.
Yes, but understanding how tax rate and budget deficit affect utility [:):(] must be taken into consideration. Utility is broad ranging across regions, cultures, economies of scale, etc., so what makes you :) does not necessarily make your neighbor feel the same.

Econobots, roll out!
http://inappropriatebunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/transformers.gif

[Parkbandit]

I heard a stat today that the interest on our National Debt is 100 million dollars...

EVERY 2 HOURS.

Huge savings President Obama... THANK YOU!!!

[Daniel]

Yes, I am serious. I looked through the Dept. of Ed's budget. I could cut billions that would have zero short or long term impact on the economy.

And no, we're not. You're just a myopic jackass.

I'm myopic and you're the one that just dismissed the entire purpose of the Department of Education because it does not contribute to the economy?

Wow.

I won't even bother arguing the second point. It's obvious that's well beyond your understanding. I blame a lack of education.

[Ignot]

I heard a stat today that the interest on our National Debt is 100 million dollars...

EVERY 2 HOURS.

Huge savings President Obama... THANK YOU!!!

I don't know if it is intentional or not but it comes across like you blame Obama for 100% of our National Debt. I'm assuming you meant to thank our past President as well?

[Apotheosis]

I don't know if it is intentional or not but it comes across like you blame Obama for 100% of our National Debt. I'm assuming you meant to thank our past President as well?

One thing you fail to forget is that a portion of the "conservative" movement is about reducing government spending and reducing the size of government..

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it.. From HW Bush's NAFTA through No Child Left Behind to the Current spending stimulus....

it's all bullshit.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know if it is intentional or not but it comes across like you blame Obama for 100% of our National Debt. I'm assuming you meant to thank our past President as well?

While I applaud you actually making a contribution in a political thread... :applause: I can't help but wonder if you are up to the challenge.

Read my post again. There is a key phrase in the last sentence that is right on topic regarding Obama. See, I never blamed Obama for the debt, since that never came up.. it was that Obama saved the equivalent of 2 hours of interest on the debt and many in the MSM believing that Obama is hard at work cutting the budget.

So while you claim I came across like I was blaming Obama for the entire National Debt, I'm certain that even you can now see the error of your ways and will try to actually read a post before making such a foolish and erroneous mistake in the future.

[Methais]

....

Serious?

People like you are why America is declining in the world.

NICE CANADA SHIRT OMG

[Ignot]

While I applaud you actually making a contribution in a political thread... :applause: I can't help but wonder if you are up to the challenge.

Read my post again. There is a key phrase in the last sentence that is right on topic regarding Obama. See, I never blamed Obama for the debt, since that never came up.. it was that Obama saved the equivalent of 2 hours of interest on the debt and many in the MSM believing that Obama is hard at work cutting the budget.

So while you claim I came across like I was blaming Obama for the entire National Debt, I'm certain that even you can now see the error of your ways and will try to actually read a post before making such a foolish and erroneous mistake in the future.

No, I understood your post the first time and I assumed you knew what you were talking about. Maybe it's just your odd posting style that makes your posts come off all bitter. Anyways, don't you think the root problem is the size of our deficit? I agree with you about Obama needing to cut more and the way he started off isn't very good but Bush should be held accountable for the size of our deficit just like Obama should. Thanking Obama in the way you did implied that it was more how little he just cut then both Presidents failure to stop spending so much and increasing the principal. You compared how much he cut to interest earned in 2 hours which I viewed as a problem of our large deficit, hence my earlier post of who also needs to be thanked. I guess there are other ways of looking at it. Maybe your post would have came across different if you didn't blast sarcasm with all caps and exclamation points.

[Parkbandit]

No, I understood your post the first time and I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

If that was truely the case, your post wouldn't have started off "I don't know if it is intentional or not..." Either case, you "assumed" incorrectly.


Maybe it's just your odd posting style that makes your posts come off all bitter.

Or maybe it's your inability to read a simple sentence?


Anyways, don't you think the root problem is the size of our deficit?

Did you even bother reading the first post? At the very least.. just read the thread title for a huge clue what I was posting about.


I agree with you about Obama needing to cut more and the way he started off isn't very good but Bush should be held accountable for the size of our deficit just like Obama should. Thanking Obama in the way you did implied that it was more how little he just cut then both Presidents failure to stop spending so much and increasing the principal. You compared how much he cut to interest earned in 2 hours which I viewed as a problem of our large deficit, hence my earlier post of who also needs to be thanked.

Again.. read the first post. If you would like to discuss this, you should start a new thread pertaining to that topic.. or at least morph the discussion towards that result. You are confusing two seperate items... and then projecting that misconception upon one of my on topic posts.

[radamanthys]

I'm myopic and you're the one that just dismissed the entire purpose of the Department of Education because it does not contribute to the economy?

Wow.

I won't even bother arguing the second point. It's obvious that's well beyond your understanding. I blame a lack of education.

21st century community learning centers. 800m
State Assessments 400m
Indian Education 120m
Safe and drug free schools program- 100m
english language aquisition- 730m
Special ed -12,335m
Federal TRIO programs 828m
Howard University (wtf?) 233m
Rehab services and Disability research 3218m
Office for Civil Rights 101m

That's what, 20 billion right there?

I do not deign to discuss the merits or necessity of these (and other) programs.

That said, they do not directly help the economy one iota. Special ed requires more money than those served are able to put in, for example. The only way the Office of Civil Rights would help is if minorities were unable to function/prosper in our society (thus benefit the economy) without that office's intervention. Doubtful.

You may be thinking of state ed departments, which actually manage our schools rather than add a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. It's an easy mistake.


Oh, and I may be uncaring and non-compassionate, but I'm certainly not stupid.

What's your excuse? Typically, your posts are just a broad spectrum 'Wtf?' type response followed by an insult. If that's intelligence, award my anus a diploma, because the foulness of my excreta matches that espoused by you daily.

[Warriorbird]

You realize how 'retarded' that post is?

The government does not exist solely to 'improve the economy.'

State education departments have proven themselves deeply flawed on multiple occassions. No Child Left Behind was left to the states and they completely fucked it up.

Federalism did happen for a reason as much as you may hate it.

Then again, maybe you like the idea of segregation (we'd still have that without federal intervention) and leaving every special ed student at home. That'd TOTALLY help the economy there.

Teaching creationism is also a really great state backed idea. That one totally leads to winners.

::

In addition... the Education Department is TINY compared to bloat elsewhere.

[Latrinsorm]

The problem with trusting the states rather than the federal government is that states have repeatedly demonstrated that they know fuck-all. Recall Governor Faubus, Governor Wallace, the ratification of the 15th Amendment. Can we so quickly dismiss conduct so egregious? The federal government has many failings, but how can you predict benefit from a rope of sand? Have states ever gotten anything substantially right against the federal government?

[Latrinsorm]

I meant to get this all in one post. C'est la vie.
Yes, but understanding how tax rate and budget deficit affect utility [:):(] must be taken into consideration.When creating the budget and tax code, sure. It is my impression that President Obama intended to do neither with this announcement/program.
Utility is broad ranging across regions, cultures, economies of scale, etc., so what makes you :) does not necessarily make your neighbor feel the same.I did not imply such. Regardless of the stark contrasts in our cultures and regions, we are all Americans, equally privy to and invested in the American future. This doesn't mean that I think everyone should or does feel better because President Obama is pinching relative pennies, it means that for the first time since President Reagan (who also had his problems, to put it lightly), we have someone with grand ideas in the Oval Office. We have the freedom as Americans to respond any way we please and the ability as dwellers of the 21st century to be as informed as we please. Will your answer be "this gesture shall be measured purely in dollars, as we are dollar-based beings, and as such is insulting", or can it be "this gesture shall be measured also with sentimental eyes, as we are also sentimenal beings, and as such is inspiring"?

Go on, try smiling! The world sucks, but we can make it so much better! :)

[Daniel]

21st century community learning centers. 800m
State Assessments 400m
Indian Education 120m
Safe and drug free schools program- 100m
english language aquisition- 730m
Special ed -12,335m
Federal TRIO programs 828m
Howard University (wtf?) 233m
Rehab services and Disability research 3218m
Office for Civil Rights 101m

That's what, 20 billion right there?

I do not deign to discuss the merits or necessity of these (and other) programs.

That said, they do not directly help the economy one iota. Special ed requires more money than those served are able to put in, for example. The only way the Office of Civil Rights would help is if minorities were unable to function/prosper in our society (thus benefit the economy) without that office's intervention. Doubtful.

You may be thinking of state ed departments, which actually manage our schools rather than add a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. It's an easy mistake.


Oh, and I may be uncaring and non-compassionate, but I'm certainly not stupid.

What's your excuse? Typically, your posts are just a broad spectrum 'Wtf?' type response followed by an insult. If that's intelligence, award my anus a diploma, because the foulness of my excreta matches that espoused by you daily.

My point was that you were retarded for suggesting that the whole point of The Department of EDUCATION was to improve the economy. Your post shows nothing other than you know fuck all about shit.

[radamanthys]

My point was that you were retarded for suggesting that the whole point of The Department of EDUCATION was to improve the economy. Your post shows nothing other than you know fuck all about shit.

Whoa! I said that?? I must be drunk!

How about you wander over back to the thread and re-read my posts. It's ok... I'll wait.... *tap, tap tap*... There ya go! That'a boy!

Here's what you might have missed: I implied that a reduction in national debt would serve as an overall economic improvement. And we can't really reduce debt by increasing spending now, can we. So any federal spending that we reduce would decrease the budget deficit, thus slowing the debt's growth. Debt is bad. Repeat that for me, because I don't think you (actually, we all) get it. Debt. Is. Bad.

Wait... why, you ask? Why is debt bad? I'll tell you! We have to pay interest on debt. As debt increases, the interest grows, as well. Which requires more money to pay. Which further increases the debt. Which decreases the ability to pay for the little 'feel good' offices splattered around the fed. (This is one reason. There are many analyses of national debt and its relation to economics. I'm not qualified to explain them, not being an economist. Not that anyone really knows it all, that is.)

Oh, for what it's worth... Debt growth rates are higher than GDP growth rates. Think about that. Ruminate, if you will.

This guy has a pretty decent basic example of what I'm talking about. (Creds for WB (http://www.chrismartenson.com/about)) Was a
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/crisis-explained-one-chart-debt-gdp/11570
(http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/crisis-explained-one-chart-debt-gdp/11570)

There is 0 possibility of 'spending money to make money' anymore. Baby boomers are retiring. These people- like my parents- will be on pensions. Fixed incomes. Massive inflation would kill the old people (which might be a [pragmatically] good thing... who knows). Defaulting would fuck up our AAA rating. The implications for that are, well, horrific. Our only option is to pay down the debt. By cutting spending. Lots of spending. We need a massive budget surplus for years, in order to become solvent.

Clinton's waste of the fake surplus we had. The bush tax cuts, the first bailout, and the war. Obama's trillions in spending already. These things are stupid. Very stupid.

So, the best idea is to cut any government program that does not either produce economic benefit, or in cutting does not cause ruin. That means the education department (Which was just an example, there are others that would be culled, as well). I'm aware that a 60bn dollar budget in the face of 11 trillion debt is a drop in the bucket. That's what the whole OP article was about, actually.

I'm sorry I have to explain everything to you, dannyboy. It's probably the public schooling. (Whoa... See what I did there?)

[Disclaimer: Daniel, who apparently knows everything about shit, has determined that I know fuck-all about shit. My response, as is the 'Daniel's Magical Posting Formula® way' should have been, "My point was no, you commie pinko SOB. Ur Dum!".]

[Warriorbird]

Nothing against your Chris Martenson fellow other than the fact that he's, well, a neurotoxicologist and an investor/MBA. That colors his perspective a bit.

There are significant barriers towards your ideas working out, however.

Congress would be highest on that list. The prime motivator for both Republicans and Democrats is spend. Republicans didn't really consider any spending except social programs a problem until Obama got elected.

I remember a poster on this very board saying that spending on the military, wars, police, prisons, and the afteraffects of war wasn't 'big government.' While you may be all about cutting you didn't bring up any of those or DHS or Social Security which dwarf any spending on the Department of Education in scale.

You also haven't considered the down market consequences of some of your cuts. If we cut special education entirely there'd be a rippling cascade of direct economic effects as thousands of parents would have to go home to take care of their children for example.

Everybody loves tax cuts (especially around here.) Yet even under a Republican Congress we spent massively more along with the tax cuts, which largely removes the point.

[Daniel]

Whoa! I said that?? I must be drunk!


You must be.

How you reconcile:


I'd like to see him cut out the ineffectual, unconstitutional, and unnecessary burdens. Like the department of education.


With:


So, the best idea is to cut any government program that does not either produce economic benefit, or in cutting does not cause ruin. That means the education department (Which was just an example, there are others that would be culled, as well). I'm aware that a 60bn dollar budget in the face of 11 trillion debt is a drop in the bucket. That's what the whole OP article was about, actually.


Is beyond me.

That clearly shows that you measure the utility of the Department of EDUCATION in dollars. On both counts, I'm not sure how you get anything else out of it. I won't even touch the "unconstitutional" part, which is just amazingly stupid.

For the rest of your post: I'm fully aware that debt is "bad". My point isn't the contrary, nor is it even remotely related. Once again: Relating the utility of things like education to only economic gains is myopic and a part of what is causing the United States to fail again and again in this world.

Using your criteria, we should just cut the entire defense budget that does not directly contribute to the economy or does not "immediately cause ruin" (How you quantify that is beyond me. The complete break down of education in our country would surely invite ruin, if not tomorrow but in a single generation).

That makes sense huh? Or do you really just have no concept of public goods? Let's just cut our space program because obviously..we aren't being invaded by aliens. That's a great idea.

The best is not to just cut government programs that serve a economic benefit to our society just because they do not immediately contribute to the economy, which is what you were and continue to imply.

[radamanthys]

Daniel. Your post contains no substantive argument with which to respond. It's another, "No! UR DUM" post. I tried to explain, but you're still reiterating the same argument- the one I just refuted. And for fuck's sake Google stuff that you don't understand. I'm obviously not just pulling stuff out of my ass here. There's a great 10th amendment vs implied powers argument regarding the constitutionality of the ED that I have no desire to make- especially with the liberal lawyers that haunt this place. I refuse to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Also, you're a prick. I'm not responding to you until you can act at least moderately civil.

So... WB...

He was also a VP at a fortune 300. Plus, as an MBA, you typically need to know your shit. Well, at least the assfucking of a finance exam I took yesterday tells me so.

And then you've iterated the exact point I've been making recently (not necessarily here). The government needs to fix this (I refer to Dems and Reps both when I say government. They both get epic fail awards.).

And I'm not a Republican. I'm just as critical of the DHS and other law enforcement (The ATF used blackwater troops on domestic soil. Wtf.).

Prisons require 30-40 grand per inmate per year. 75% of that is drug related. You see where I'm going here. Many laws are built around law enforcement revenue. Speeding, for example. How many state troopers would we need if we legalized drugs and cut out interstate speed limits? 10?

Whoever said that law enforcement isn't 'big government' is an idiot. It's the very definition of big government. I mean... in any dystopic future media, what's the prevailing imagery representative of a corrupt government? Excessive Law enforcement. The other side is anarchy, which I don't recommend.

I mean... how many unenforceable laws can the government pass? By law, you have to append your real name and address to every missive on the web. Passing a law does not stop something from occuring. Texing while driving, for example- people know that it's stupid. They know the risk they take. Will a fine really change their mind? It's symbolic of corruption. Just like the "red light cameras". Who the hell runs a red light on purpose?

There are certainly necessities in government spending. Like science research. Stuff that has long-term benefit for the economic well being of the country. My main point is that we have to get out of debt. Fast. Like 2-3 years fast. Baby boomers turning 65 fast.

blah.

[Daniel]

Daniel. Your post contains no substantive argument with which to respond. It's another, "No! UR DUM" post. I tried to explain, but you're still reiterating the same argument- the one I just refuted. .

What exactly do you think I don't understand? That debt is "bad"? Really?

Man. You're making quite a pervasive argument as to why we need a Department of Education and a much more effective one @ that.

[Methais]

UR DUMB AND UR FACE SMELLS

[Keller]

UR DUMB AND UR FACE SMELLS

And hates America.

And is gay.

And is a vaginaist.

And a liberal. No, socialist. No, communist. No, Lucifur himself.

[Methais]

And is gay.

That is a rather warm embrace he and Rob have there.

[Daniel]

That is a rather warm embrace he and Rob have there.

It's an embrace that only two pussy getting motherfuckers can have.

[Methais]

It's an embrace that only two pussy getting motherfuckers can have.

If I didn't know any better I would have thought that was a Seany Digital post.

[Keller]

It's an embrace that only two pussy getting motherfuckers can have.

That sounds apologetic.

Got something to hide? :)