Where Would You Cut Fed'l Spending?

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

It looks to me that taking care of those uncapable or unwilling to work costs more federal dollars than everything else combined.

Let's enroll every unemployed person in the military or in a factory, provide room & board, and solve two problems at once.

/sarcasm

Those with a physical incapability, I can understand. But those who are just inherently lazy, those are the ones ya gotta crack down on.

[rwarn17588]

I'd cut agriculture subsidies.

Those programs were meant originally for small farmers. But agriculture has become a bunch of corporations so that such subsidies are gravy, and most small farms have disappeared or don't benefit from such programs.

And remember, I grew up on a farm.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'd cut agriculture subsidies.

Those programs were meant originally for small farmers. But agriculture has become a bunch of corporations so that such subsidies are gravy, and most small farms have disappeared or don't benefit from such programs.

And remember, I grew up on a farm.

How about subsidies for small farmers, and let the corporate farming concerns muddle along without government handouts.

[rwarn17588]

I wouldn't mind that so much, except that most subsidies that help one guy hurt another. If a corn grower gets a price subsidy, it hurts the beef cattle rancher because it drives the cost of his finishing feed up.

Contradictory subsidies are all over in the agriculture sector, and I've never understood it -- except as a way for lawmakers to buy farmers' votes through a special-interest subsidy.

Farm subsidies are just a vicious circle, and as a result, a big waste of taxpayer money.

Get rid of 'em all.

Small farmers, especially if they raise organic or specialty foods, can actually command a much higher unit price than the corporate farmers who produce a zillion of one thing and don't have the care or expertise to produce a specialty item.

[Conan71]

Yep, it's called voter insurance.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

One has to wonder why every poor schmuck in the U.S. should help underwrite your home and your second home to boot.  We could go on.  Your kid's college grants and loans.  The road you drove to work on.  Et cetera, et cetera.  Oh, but that's okay because it benefits you, right?

You're argument incorrectly assumes that poor people pay taxes, they do not.  The federal governments income is derived from income taxes.  The bottom 40% or so actually receives a rebate from the government for existing.  Thus, they subsidize nothing - we subsidize them.  

Not that I am arguing in favor of the mortgage deduction - encouraging home ownership is an antiquated concept as we worry about urban sprawl.  

College loans probably do more for the economy than anything else the government can do, a fine investment in itself.  They are not limited to certain income levels or educational achievement, it is these loans that enable the poor (ME!) to go to college. Used by rich and poor alike.

Roads is an essential function of government.  Remembering that the poor do not contribute financially to the federal government, they do not subsidize roads.  Not to mention, in most areas of the country they utilize this asset as much as their wealthier counterparts.