US drops from the top 10 free economies list

[Arrian]

He means that although killing SS won't balance the budget, killing all forms of wealth transfer/welfare/etc certainly would.

And, because DF is a hardcore Libertarian, he's all for that.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

He probably thinks that most all spending is welfare, but most of the programs that most people call welfare really don't cost that much.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Although, in fairness, ending Social Security and other similar welfare programs WOULD probably balance the budget, in spite of tax cuts

only ending SS and keeping the tax would do that. Ending both would leave the government with a slight shortfall now, but ultimately keep it from swinging massively negative later on.

If on the other hand you mean all of non-discretionary spending, then yea, that would just about cover it, and make it possible to bring the US back into the black in less then 20 years.

[Kidlicious]

Government spending as a share of GDP does keep going up in the US, and in fact in most of the world. That's a good sign that free market economics is really just fading away. No wonder these studies don't consider taxes anymore.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whoha
If on the other hand you mean all of non-discretionary spending, then yea, that would just about cover it, and make it possible to bring the US back into the black in less then 20 years.

Non-discretionary or discretionary?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
When are people going to stop thinking that freer is better. Obviously a totally free market would fail miserably. It's nonsense.

But a free market does not mean it's free from regulations. It means companies should be able to freely enter the market and to compete inside.

Laissez-faire doesn't guarantee that, you need government regulations to keep a level playing field.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Non-discretionary or discretionary?

if we were to cut discretionary spending that would just about cover the real size of the deficit, for this year atleast. but the big one is non-discretionary spending.
any proportional cut would take most of its pound of flesh out of that one.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html

table 2.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't care if you call SS welfare. It doesn't bother me.

Which is why you had to point that out.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
But a free market does not mean it's free from regulations.

You can't really believe that. The people who support it want smaller government and less regulation.

[Sava]

NOBODY HAS MENTIONED THAT ONE PARTY CONTROLS ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT...

REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING AMERICA LESS FREE!!!

[kolpo]

I always wonder why right winged people get more angered by even the sligest welfare or social security spending then by the massive military spending. Just bringing all troops outside the USA home could dramatically reduce spending(much more then ending social security would do what is MAKING money at the moment). Every american and especially the rich ones are paying tons of money for the military, no mather whatever they like what it does or not they have to pay for it.

Ending some very expensive military research projects with little practical use(Rumsfeld his pet projects) could reduce spending even more.

This army uses "stop loss" something what goes right againsts the very basic principles of capitalism : people are FREE to work for whoever they want and nobody can be forced to work beyond the terms of his contract.

People who want a more free economy and less spending should focus more on one of the biggest state run organizations of the US, one that has no respect for the way capitalism works: the army!

[Sava]

post more often kolpo

[Kidlicious]

The military creates a lot of jobs for untrained people. Your capitalism wouldn't work too well without all the spending that goes to the military.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by kolpo
I always wonder why right winged people get more angered by even the sligest welfare or social security spending then by the massive military spending. Just bringing all troops outside the USA home could dramatically reduce spending(much more then ending social security would do what is MAKING money at the moment). Every american and especially the rich ones are paying tons of money for the military, no mather whatever they like what it does or not they have to pay for it.

Ending some very expensive military research projects with little practical use(Rumsfeld his pet projects) could reduce spending even more.

This army uses "stop loss" something what goes right againsts the very basic principles of capitalism : people are FREE to work for whoever they want and nobody can be forced to work beyond the terms of his contract.

People who want a more free economy and less spending should focus more on one of the biggest state run organizations of the US, one that has no respect for the way capitalism works: the army!

slight = 1.2-1.4 trillion
massive = 360-400 billion

I agree that all spending can and should be cut, but there is only so much blood that you will be able to squeeze out of the discretionary spending stone.

[Az]

slight = 1.2-1.4 trillion

What does that include?