DammitBoy said:
Really? Just looking at that laundry list, I see several things that would help balance a budget. Like making bailouts and stimulus plans illegal, that'd save billions.
Illegal aliens drain our resources in the billions. Downsized government would save money, don't you think? Ending deficit spending sounds like a route towards a balanced budget.
I'd add term limits, eliminating the electoral college, eliminating most of our foriegn aid, and reducing our military footprint around the world - but that's just me.
Ending deficit spending is basically saying "cut spending" but my point was where the spending cuts would come from. Likewise, downsized government would obviously save money and I'm fully for that, but I'd like more clarification on what is being downsized before I would say that helps cut costs to some significance.
I agree on ending the bailouts, but their impact on the deficit over the last few years as a whole is pretty marginal.
Stimulus - 787 billion dollar cost, 290 billion of which was tax cuts... stuff that the Tea Party advocates for.
Illegal immigration does cost money, but what approach to it significantly reduces cost there, I don't really know, and unless there's a good solution to it offered, I would hardly count that as a great fix to lower costs.
The stuff you added on your own accord, I fully agree with. Though the "stronger military is essential" bit from the tea party goal might fly in the face of that, depending on their meaning.
DammitBoy said:
Roughly half of the defense department expenditures involve U.S. military bases on foreign soil.
Do you have a source for this? That seems a bit surprising and looking it up, it seems half the budget is in operation and maintenance, so I'm curious if you're just using that number? Are you including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in that figure?
Crni Vuk said:
I am in general for smaller military presence but I doubt a simple decrease of the military force will fix the budged emidiately. I mean one has to remember that the military either directly or indirectly has been a source for jobs in the US for at least the past 60s years when they decided to increase the military-industrial-complex after WW2. But thats just some idea. It is not like I really know the details.
Even though it might be a source for jobs, that same money being spent on that could be used to generate more productive jobs back home that would create a better long term picture. So the threat of job loss there doesn't seem to be a huge problem in my opinion.
