Let's balance the budget; what would you cut?

[Ben Kenobi]

What's so hard to figure?

Multiple choice.

[Kitschum]

I realize it's multiple choice, but what innumerate decided to illustrate results that don't add up to 100% with a circle diagram?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a lame way to show it yes, but your argument is with the guy who did the graph not the numbers.

[Kitschum]

Yes. What's your point?

[Flubber]

I cut both by 15 percent and managed to save 1 trillion exactly. Stop lying.

Ben -- if you could read you would know that oerdin was replying to the poster that suggested you would be "done" simply by applying means testing to Medicare and Social Security. Since together they total less than a trillion, he wondered how that was possible. Your cuts and analysis were not part of what was being addressed in that post.

[Flubber]

The problem in these exercises is that there is probably a certain amount of waste in ANY government department. But if that department is told to make cuts, they don't find the waste since a lot of it is probably entitlements around the high ranker making the decisions. As well, government officials often want to protect the size of their little kingdoms and therefore most lists of cuts will contain some "sacred cows"-- Its a known tactic-- If asked how you would implement a 10% budget cut, you show that certain programs would disappear that the politicians absolutely would not want to cut.



My cuts? I don't know that I would get to a trillion and would probably add in some tax increases but at the outset I think that you could cut defence some. Its tricky though-- you want the R and D to keep the US ahead in the tech race but at the same time how much do you want to spend on a big fleet of stealth aircraft that are likely to never be used. I hear DF and his contain China strategy but does anyone really anticipate that China will start invading neighbors?

[David Floyd]

I hear DF and his contain China strategy but does anyone really anticipate that China will start invading neighbors?

If Taiwan declares independence, then absolutely.

But, Taiwan IS independent. If we believe in self-determination at all, we have to recognize that, and should encourage it. I'm not saying we should seek war with China, and I'm not saying we should pressure Taiwan to do anything inflammatory. I am saying that Taiwan, with a tiny fraction of the population of China, compares pretty favorably to China's economy when adjusted for population. Taiwan is a model of success, China, of failure, although now that China is largely abandoning communism they are improving.

The point is, though, whether or not China invades anyone, they are the strategic competitor for the US, for the 21st Century. We should do everything we can to force them to spend money and make decisions in reaction to us, while simultaneously maintaining our space lead over them by militarizing the space program and drastically increasing funding.

The other point you made, about spending money on equipment that may never be used - well, it will be used, if not for the purpose originally envisioned, than for some purpose. More importantly, by maintaining and increasing our military tech lead over China, we are forcing them to spend their relatively limited resources to try to keep up, rather than investing in other areas of their economy. Again, anything we can do to slow down China is ultimately in our long term strategic benefit.

I don't hate China, I just don't want to see them dictating to the United States rather than the other way around. But unless we act, that could possibly be the case in 50 years.

[Drake Tungsten]

I am saying that Taiwan, with a tiny fraction of the population of China, compares pretty favorably to China's economy when adjusted for population.

[KrazyHorse]

My head hurts.

[David Floyd]

Whatever. **** China. Go America.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't hate China, I just don't want to see them dictating to the United States rather than the other way around. But unless we act, that could possibly be the case in 50 years.

China will be older than the USA in just 20 years. Whatever they do they have a very small and short window. If by 2030, they haven't done it, they aren't going to reach there.

[David Floyd]

Ben, the problem is if we keep teaching our children about bull**** like creationism and religion and ****. That stuff will seriously short circuit our long term potential, if the rest of the world teaches things like, well, science.

[Elok]

If we teach our kids creationism, they will have a pretty feeble understanding of the fundamentals of modern biology. It will likely have some impact on our performance in biotechnology. Other than that, it will be just another national embarrassment. Climate change denial would seem to be far, far more serious.

Oh, and aside from pulling out of Afghanistan posthaste I haven't a clue what to due about the budget. I don't think any other kind of serious cut is politically feasible at this point.

[David Floyd]

I'm not denying climate change one way or the other. I do think there's much more dispute and controversy regarding climate change than there is about evolution, but my main point is, the more we allow religion and politics to interfere with science, the worse off we are. Science is what it is, and changing that to allow for "democracy", or "religion", or "political correctness", or anything else is a recipe for failure.

I do know that failing to teach children proper science, and proper critical thinking skills, combined with teaching them to believe in religion, is simply a recipe for a bunch of ignorant ****s in 15 years.

[David Floyd]

More significantly, teaching children Creationism will certainly impact their understanding of biology, which may or may not be hugely significant. However, the main point is that by trying to teach children both Creationism and the scientific method, or even worse, Creationism only, you are destroying their ability to think, and hopelessly confusing them.