Pardon me, but um... I do wanna take away grannys SS check. And Shaniqua's welfare check. And my mothers disability check. And removing the child support system from the governments hand would be good. Of coarse that goes hand in hand with making joint custody the standard instead of what we have now..

My personal belief is that the government does 2 things well, kill people and make roads.. The only reason they make the roads well is because they have to get somewhere to kill people.. Everything else should be privatized..

Everything the government touches people die.. Foster kids disappear out of the system and no one knows where they went.. Kids already die on Medicaid because you can't find a doctor to treat them.. At least that was said during the "healthcare" debate..

Amen josephine - "take away" might be too immediate of a phrase, but definitely "phase out (ASAP)."

Let people know they'll know longer be able to rely on the government (aka, your neighbor's/kid's money) for support, and maybe they'll start relying on their family when they need help, and getting off their lazy ass when they don't.

Yes, some folks will get left behind. That's going to happen in the best of societies. But you're either for government as nanny or against government as nanny. It can't be both.

Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry.

Protecting industries from Chinese competition is probably going to happen eventually.

See this article:

The world seems to be marching inexorably towards trade war. The US trade deficit is surging, for reasons that have nothing to do with domestic consumption and everything to do with policies and events abroad. In the months ahead, the US will be forced to choose either protection or soaring trade deficits with rising unemployment. It will almost certainly choose the former but if it overreacts, which is likely, it could unleash another round of global protectionism – which will especially hurt trade-surplus countries.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=1&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F9191856a-ae08-11df-bb55-00144feabdc0.html&rct=j&q=last%20chance%20to%20avoid%20a%20global%20trade%20war&ei=7mCPTPTtAtykOLv7qegM&usg=AFQjCNGxMQXOLpOZ8G0aT-9ncbu4I9rjFw&cad=rja

Who benefits?

The political class.

There's a good argument in support of criticism that the federal government has been captured by the political class and their social organs in the non-profit and academic sectors. That the public's purview is actually very limited, even elections are severely compromised as an apparatus of self government.

I'm going to keep voting, until voting stops working. There is nothing wrong with saying "No" to what we cannot afford, no matter how good it sounds.

Responsible adults do that every day. There is no reason that the government cannot.

Amy, thanks for the great advice. I'm going out to find a 550 pound man to stand next to!

Pardon me, but um... I do wanna take away grannys SS check. And Shaniqua's welfare check.

Same here. I have no patience for self-delusional people who think they can sit around on their butts for the last 25 years of their lives, even after accumulating no wealth of their own. Ditto for people who crap out litters of fatherless kids on someone else's dime.

To all those people who have been saying, 'I got mine, so screw you,' I say, 'You forget who has been paying your bills. Screw YOU.'

A big problem is that we no longer have the social structure to support people when they hit hard times.

We're living further and further away from our families, who may or may not help us out even if they can. Fewer people are regular members of religious communities. Our friends are just as transient as we are.

People depend on the government because it's the only support system that's going to follow them across the country.

Another negative: Social pressure doesn't work as well when nobody knows who you are.

I don't like enormous, sweaty government, but pretending we can go back to the way things were is naive. Society is too big for that.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have shown any willingness to tackle any of the three biggest government expenditures: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. Both parties seem to engage in magical thinking when it comes to government revenues and expenditures: Republicans seem to think we're on the right side of the Laffer curve, and Democrats seem to think that the government can spend its way out of recession. Both of these perspectives seem crazy to me.

True, Chris, but at least military IS a Constitutional duty of federal government.

Too many people seem to think "promote the general welfare" means government should take care of all their needs.

I'm voting tea party all the way this year.

What never fails to surprise me is how many "advocates for limited government" aren't fierce opponents of the drug war. These two positions are literally irreconcilable.

I don't like enormous, sweaty government, but pretending we can go back to the way things were is naive. Society is too big for that.

What society is too big for, is having so many people dependent on government and too few pulling the wagon. Government spending per capita is in many cases more than individuals actually earn. We may not go back to the way things were, but we cannot keep going the way we have been, either. There will be changes, and they will be enormous and painful.

PJ is right; for some time now the Great Society has out-spent the income of the people who support it, and has been sustained primarily by borrowing. Now the bills are due and Washington's credit card is nearly maxed out. We will have to go back to something resembling "the way things were"; we have no other choice, unless we want to descend to Third World status. Math doesn't lie.

PJ is right that there will be pains big and small. The city I live in is talking about cancelling a traditional service this year: fall leaf pickup. Much of the city is heavily wooded and the city has been doing the fall leaf pickup for decades, but like most cities, they need to find some budget savings this year. Some people don't want to lose the convenience, and others are uncomfortable with the idea of losing city services, which seems to be anti-progress. But is leaf pickup really essential? I think I can find some other way to dispose of my leaves. Heck, I can run them over with the lawn mower a few times to mulch them, and then use the mulch around the landscaping.

However, do beware of politicians will will present you with false choices. When faced with a budget deficit and a refusal by the populace to consent to increased taxes, pols often will try to punish the citizens by cutting services that are either essential for public safety (fire, police, garbage pickup) or that contribute substantially to the city's well-being (roads, parks, libraries), in order to protect bloat and bureaucracy. Don't let them get away with that. Entitlements and public employee costs are not "mandatory" and untouchable. At this time, nothing is untouchable.

Are some of you suggesting the federal government should NOT fund a million dollar study to teach uncircumcised African men how to better wash their penises?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/75198

When it comes to Republicans and Democrats, I think what we have all discovered is that the guy who's selling us candy and the dentist are both working for the same guy.

The problem is, no one gets to vote on the overall size of government. It grows one program at a time. Each program is strongly supported by the few who benefit from it, ignored by the many who pay for it (it doesn't cost any individual enough to be worth the cost of fighting it), and strongly opposed only by a tiny number of libertarian ideologues. (Don't get me wrong--I'm one of those.)

I wonder to what extent generational factors play into things like the Tea Party.

I'm smack in the middle of Generation X, and I have ALWAYS been in Rex Little's tiny little camp of libertarian ideologues. I loathe and distrust the government.

Strauss & Howe show in their book 'The Fourth Turning' that most people in my generation feel this way. More people in my generation believe in UFOs than think we will ever see a dime of Social Security. Ever since the 70s (the decade when half of us were born) the government has massively redistributed wealth away from the younger, working generations in favor of the older, retired generations. We were destined to get the shaft from the time we were little kids, before we even had our first jobs. To people my age, other people have always been the ones getting government benefits, and we were always going to be the ones paying for it. When I listen to people hoot and holler about the government spending their grandchildren's money, I just feel bitter. Why didn't anyone care about this forty years ago?

I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul in the primaries two years ago.

I do notice a pretty big age gap between the Tea Party-backed candidates and the incumbents they are beating out. Maybe my generation is finally getting old enough to start calling some of the shots, and this is the color we pour into the mixture. A happy, positive view of government will not be included.

The irony between Cuba & America these days is very startling.

People will clamor for smaller government until such smallness begins to affect them directly, at which point they will clamor, "Whoa, wait, not that small!"

So, no, I don't trust the Democrats or the Republicans to get it right, but I'm not sure I trust the population at large that much either.

Good point Old RPM Daddy. One thing I've seen a fair amount in my recent reading is that lots of people support reducing the size of government in general, but when asked about specific programs, they generally oppose making cuts.

I love how the ad on this page is for free government phones :)

Why didn't anyone care about this forty years ago?

The SS math worked better back then when fewer people lived to retirement age, fewer survived for long on SS, and people had more kids. One of the big problems with Social Security is that the actuarial assumptions it was built upon no longer hold.

People will clamor for smaller government until such smallness begins to affect them directly, at which point they will clamor, "Whoa, wait, not that small!"

If you can come up with clear cogent points that a program should exist, I'll think about it.

But some important questions:

1. Where is that <Program/department/responsibility> in the U.S. Constitution?


2. Where is the money coming from and going to?


3. Why should the rest of the public be responsible for supporting and funding it? (Beyond social welfare.)


4. Should this program be at the Federal level -- or should it be at the state or even local level.

When you can answer those questions -- those should be the deciding factor.

The Department of Education should not exist. The Dept. of Transportation and NTSB should exist but in a radically pared form. The EPA and CPSC might exist, but again, radically pared. The VA should exist because the military and defense are Fed responsibility.

The INS and border patrol are also federal responsibilities; but they are totally ineffective as currently comprised.

Looking to the government and bureaucracy to do something right -- you are screwed.

An anecdote from a private business viewpoint. Our company has a software upgrade due October 1 for government regulations. Because of constant changes to the regulations our developers are still making the programming changes. We are talking to an end-user that is saying they need a minimum of 15 days to test in the companies bureaucracy. Our reply -- you will have seven days to either upgrade to follow the law or be out of compliance and it is not our responsibility.

Jim P., I'm not arguing your point at all. I don't have a problem with your four questions, either. They're probably as good a measure as any for determining what the Fed should or shouldn't be mixed up in. My point was that people will lose enthusiasm for shrinking the federal government when the shrinkage puts the bite on them.

I remember seeing a cartoon in the newspaper after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. He was in cowboy garb, riding the range with another fellow, overseeing cattle which represented federal programs. Reagan said something like, "How do we know which cows are the sacred ones?" His partner said, "Guess you'll just have to ask 'em."

@Old RPM Daddy - "People will clamor for smaller government until such smallness begins to affect them directly, at which point they will clamor, 'Whoa, wait, not that small!' "

That may have been true in the past, but at the point we're rapidly approaching, people are getting directly affected whether we cut programs or not. No one that I know my age (under 30) has any faith whatsoever that SS will be around when we are old enough to use it. We're not that dumb. We know that the baby boomers have basically taken our money to shore up their retirement/welfare/liberal pipedreams, and that there's going to be nothing left.

So we might as well cut Social Security, Medicare, etc now, and leave the people who made the mess to deal with it. I'm young enough that I don't need to rely on SS or Medicare anytime soon. The thought of those programs not being there when I'm 60 doesn't scare me in the slightest. So I've got zero problem cutting those programs to the bone and leaving the 50+ crowd out to dry.

I'm probably going to be in the notch if they cut SS. But for cutting it. Let me take my money that I'm no longer paying in and fund my retirement. If I have to work longer, so be it.

RPM daddy,

This is entirely true. And I don't clamor for the continuation of any of these programs.. I can't stand that they exist.. For instance.. Public school. I chose to have 7 children. It is my job to educate them.. And notice I didn't say my job to get them up at 5 in the morning to get them ready for school.. School that BTW costs more than 15,000 in real cost per child per year. Add that up.. Or multiply it. 15,000 x 7 for 13 years.. We don't make that kind of money.. How do I have the right to demand others educate the children I chose to have. What stuff they have to learn comes out of our pockets.. The 500$ telescope and the 300$ microscope we pay for.. Then the supplies on top of that. But it still cost way less than 105k a year.. And for 13 years.. I am not a millionaire and it shouldn't cost society that much to educate my kids.. It is outright theft.

And for anyone who says not everyone has the skill to school their own kids.. Did these unprepared people go to public schools.. The same one they are trusting with their children? It is baffling.

I read this fantastic article in which they interviewed a Tea Party protester - she started out with the standard "Get the government out of my life! It's too big and taxes are too high!" Then the journalist asked her specifically what programs needed to go. She said to cut welfare, food stamps, medical care for those immigrants, etc. The journalist asked her if Social Security and Medicare should go too. She had this great line, something like, "Oh, no, I want to keep those. You know, I was only thinking about what other people were getting from the government, I wasn't thinking about what I was getting. I think I've changed my mind."

This is someone who is actively participating in a protest - she hadn't given ONE THOUGHT to what she was protesting against.

Sam, you got a link for that? It would not surprise me in the least if that so-called "Tea Party protester" was actually a left-wing infiltrator. They have been doing their damndest to discredit the Tea Party by impersonating it and then acting out -- stuff like slipping in with racist signs, and then alerting their MSM buddies to come photograph this "racist Tea Partier". The Michigan Democratic Party is in a hell of a lot of trouble right now over having invented a fake Tea Party group to try to discredit the real one.

Having said that: It is true that a fair number of people who ought to know better support continuing Social Security as is. Part of the problem, though, is that the government and the education establishment and the MSM have told them since birth that SS is an investment program; the proverbial "lockbox". Of course, that's total BS; SS has been structured as a Ponzi scheme since day one. But over the decades the Washington propaganda machines have been extraordinarily effective at selling that lie.

Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Holy shit, biff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

I suppose she could be a left-wing plant. It was a really strange thing to say.

Jodine White, quoted at the end of the article:

"But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

'That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?' asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. 'I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.' She added, 'I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.'

Nonsense Dave. Tell someone their mom has to move in with them and stop getting SS. Or a mother that she has to give up the state paid daycare that government schools are.

They will look at you like you have grown another head. They are not plants they are just not serious. Its one reason why I don't do the protests.. They are not serious about doing for themselves. If you take away their welfare/favored program they will riot. The companies that are taking money from the government are just doing on a large scale what they are doin' on a smaller scale..

It is true that a fair number of people who ought to know better support continuing Social Security as is.

Talk about people who should know better. . .this guy won a Nobel in economics!

The link in my post above didn't seem to take. The address I was aiming for was http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=3

My parents get Social Security but don't need it. They have savings of their own, and both of them could be working right now. But what good is it going to do if they turn down the benefits? Is the government going to take that money and use it to pay down the national debt? My parents would support doing away with Social Security or reducing benefits, and my mom actually suggests a lifetime cap on Medicare benefits. She knows an old couple, both with a foot in the grave already, who have cost the taxpayers $3.5 million in Medicare-covered surgeries. Getting old sucks, but "we the people" don't have that kind of money to spend on every 78-year-old who wants it.

The human body is only designed to last 30 yrs, everything after that is a result of prevenitive maintence, clean living, and masive public investment in macro and micro sanitation

Not exactly. Even in times and places where the mean life expectancy was only 30, plenty of people lived into their 60's. What brought the expectancy figure down was that for every one of those, there was a child who didn't make it to 10 because of disease or starvation. Modern industrial societies have greatly reduced childhood deaths (largely by the means Lujlp listed) compared to ancient times.

(This post and the previous one are off-topic, but the thread has moved far enough down the page that no one's reading it anymore, so who cares.)