When cutting subsidies, cut corporate welfare as well

[icehorse]

We often hear the GOP complain that the US is turning into a "big government, nanny" state (in reference to entitlement programs like social security and medicare).

This data is probably not perfect (I'd love links to better data!), but I think it's close enough for discussion purposes:

2014 federal expenditures:

- defense: $525 billion
- corporate
subsidies: $100 billion
- medicare: $ 80 billion
- education: $ 70 billion

Just to name a few big ticket items.

How about when the GOP proposes cuts to entitlements we get 2 for 1 or 4 for 1 cuts to corporate subsidies? (E.g. Cut medicare by 10 billion? Okay, if we cut corporate subsidies by $20 or $40 billion.)

 

[Midnight Rain]

We often hear the GOP complain that the US is turning into a "big government, nanny" state (in reference to entitlement programs like social security and medicare).

This data is probably not perfect (I'd love links to better data!), but I think it's close enough for discussion purposes:

2014 federal expenditures:

- defense: $525 billion
- corporate
subsidies: $100 billion
- medicare: $ 80 billion
- education: $ 70 billion

Just to name a few big ticket items.

How about when the GOP proposes cuts to entitlements we get 2 for 1 or 4 for 1 cuts to corporate subsidies? (E.g. Cut medicare by 10 billion? Okay, if we cut corporate subsidies by $20 or $40 billion.)

How about we cut Defense by about 100 billion, then cut corporate subsidies by about 60 billion, change the healthcare system to a unified single payer system and run it off of just the budgets for meidcare, medicaid with a slight increase in funding (as that is all it would need), double education spending like we did in 2009 and walk away with about a 5% tax reduction.

 

[icehorse]

hooray!

(although the other point of the OP was to push back the claims of "nanny state")

 

[Midnight Rain]

hooray!

(although the other point of the OP was to push back the claims of "nanny state")

True. The ideal situation is that we don't have a huge government over our heads but the problem is that both parties love to spend money. Just on different things. Imagine for just a single second if we never spent as much money as we do on the military. Think for a moment if we were like any other country in the world in terms of military budget. Imagine the incredible and vehement opposition we would have if we wanted to suddenly increase our spending of the military to the point it nearly took half of our entire fiscal budget for the year.

 

[Willamena]

True. The ideal situation is that we don't have a huge government over our heads but the problem is that both parties love to spend money. Just on different things. Imagine for just a single second if we never spent as much money as we do on the military. Think for a moment if we were like any other country in the world in terms of military budget. Imagine the incredible and vehement opposition we would have if we wanted to suddenly increase our spending of the military to the point it nearly took half of our entire fiscal budget for the year.

It's not a problem of loving to spend, but of loving to have. To have roads, hospitals, schools, arts, security... The U.S. spends more on military because it is a safe place to live. They have the most to lose.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's not a problem of loving to spend, but of loving to have. To have roads, hospitals, schools, arts, security... The U.S. spends more on military because it is a safe place to live. They have the most to lose.

False in some regards and true in others. Our massively inflated military budget has little to do with security. We could get by and be just as safe (if not more so) with spending half of what we spend.

 

[icehorse]

Agreed on the military spending. We spend so much because the masters of war have such a strong lobby. We'd be completely safe on a fraction of the current budget.

 

[Baladas]

Agreed. We are far too aggressive, and we waste way too much money on unnecessary military spending. I am definitely for cutting the corporate welfare as well.

 

[Marisa]

How about we cut Defense by about 100 billion, then cut corporate subsidies by about 60 billion, change the healthcare system to a unified single payer system and run it off of just the budgets for meidcare, medicaid with a slight increase in funding (as that is all it would need), double education spending like we did in 2009 and walk away with about a 5% tax reduction.

What Midnight Rain said.

 

[Marisa]

hooray!

(although the other point of the OP was to push back the claims of "nanny state")

I hate this phrase, almost as much as I hate the ACA being referred to as Obamacare. To some extent, the government will always have to care for those who can't care for themselves. And even the most liberal of liberals (such as myself) recognizes that we are better off when people are working and caring for themselves. I don't personally think we need a military so big that we can fight any war we want to start, slashing defense spending might make us explore diplomacy more honestly (I say this a a military spouse, do I get brownie points for that?). I think cutting corporate subsidies is a great idea, but some just need to go away, like oil subsidies. Big oil has been racking up record profits, paying little to no tax on those profits AND receiving huge subsidies from the government. In Texas, Perry even threatened to gut the state's education budget to pay for tax incentives for big oil to follow state laws regarding incorporation. That, IMO, is much more indicative of a "nanny state" than when the government provides a stipend for a disabled person.

 

[Marisa]

It's not a problem of loving to spend, but of loving to have. To have roads, hospitals, schools, arts, security... The U.S. spends more on military because it is a safe place to live. They have the most to lose.

There is massive waste in the military. From tanks the army doesn't want that it's forced to buy (because lobbying) to individual units. The hubs once managed his unit's budget. They were given X amount of money at the beginning of the fiscal year, and come the end were scrambling trying to spend it all. Why? Because the military (then, I don't know if it's still this way) said that if you didn't spend your entire budget, next years was cut by the amount you didn't spend AND you lost what you didn't spend.

 

[Revoltingest]

I favor increasing the defense budget, but cutting the offense budget by even more.

 

[Marisa]

I favor increasing the defense budget, but cutting the offense budget by even more.

That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way.

It occurred to me that we've been tricked by language, ie, their using "defense" to describe all military activity. A portion of the "defense" budget is primarily offensive, & some defensive activity isn't military, eg, energy independence & decentralization.

 

[Marisa]

It occurred to me that we've been tricked by language, ie, their using "defense" to describe all military activity. A portion of the "defense" budget is primarily offensive, & some defensive activity isn't military, eg, energy independence & decentralization.

I wonder how that would play out, defining which bits are defensive and which are offensive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how that would play out, defining which bits are defensive and which are offensive.

It would be pretty straightforward for those in the business. The Iraq & Afghan war costs would be offensive.

 

[Marisa]

It would be pretty straightforward for those in the business. The Iraq & Afghan war costs would be offensive.

I don't know. The military isn't known for letting those with the most knowledge make budget decisions. Neither is congress. LOL

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know. The military isn't known for letting those with the most knowledge make budget decisions. Neither is congress. LOL

Congress is the culprit. They decide upon the policies which the military must achieve.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But....but.....

Corporations are people!!!!!

How could such a thing even be considered?