Texas "draws the line" against "tyrants" in Washington

[Dudde]

No, you're missing his point. He's saying that everything we spend money on has a good reason for it, to somebody. And the problem Obama is going to have is that we have to cut spending, which means, we're going to have to cut funding on things in which there's a good reason for it, to somebody.

 

 

I'm not missing the point, I understand completely. Forgive me, blame the upbringing if you want - but I see educating the United States as something that should take second place to national defense and almost nothing else should be put in front of it. It's not just a good reason in my opinion, it's a pretty essential part of keeping our position in the world, especially when we're already falling so ridiculously far behind.

 

for the record, I'm completely aware of the fact that we need power, electricity, transportation, food, water, warmth, all that stuff - don't throw out something stupid like "if we spend all our money on school then how will we eat!??!1/!@"

[bascule]

And you two have just perfectly demonstrated my point. Yes, we need to cut spending, but oh no, not that spending

 

How is expanding the budget of the Department of Education an "unprecedented expansion of power"? I don't see any expansion of power going on presently. I think there was unprecedented expansion of power a few years ago, especially when Congress granted the President the authority to spy on Americans without a warrant. As far as I'm concerned that's unconstitutional. What exactly are we seeing now?

[Pangloss]

Well the reason why this is going to be difficult is because there's nothing wrong with your point. It's one I happen to share -- educational spending has not been where it needed to be.

 

Education is a relatively small portion of the budget (only $50 billion!), but there's nothing anywhere in the budget that doesn't enjoy a wide range of popular support. Otherwise it wouldn't be in there in the first place.

[Phi for All]

Each person sees their portion of taxes being wasted on many things.

 

What if there was a way to save tens of billions of dollars on a certain segment of our federal spending, simply by changing the process we currently use on that segment? If it meant sacrificing a little convenience at the consumer level in the near future temporarily in exchange for much more convenience down the road, would that be okay? What if the same new process could be applied at the state level to save hundreds of billions of dollars? But what if the new process made certain jobs unnecessary? Would it be worth it then?

 

Once you knew about the new process saving tons of money and meaning a better quality of life in the long run, wouldn't the jobs now seem like wasted time and money?

[bascule]

What if there was a way to save tens of billions of dollars on a certain segment of our federal spending, simply by changing the process we currently use on that segment? If it meant sacrificing a little convenience at the consumer level in the near future temporarily in exchange for much more convenience down the road, would that be okay? What if the same new process could be applied at the state level to save hundreds of billions of dollars? But what if the new process made certain jobs unnecessary? Would it be worth it then?

 

Yes, and perhaps this deserves its own thread, but one way the government could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year is by eliminating separate commands in the Pentagon. There is considerable amount of administrative overlap which leads not only to inefficiency but means we must pay that many times more to duplicate those features in each command.

 

Unifying command wouldn't reduce the size of our troops or cost them anything. It would be about streamlining the Pentagon and reducing waste. It would also come at the cost of a number of jobs.

[Phi for All]

Yes, and perhaps this deserves its own thread, but one way the government could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year is by eliminating separate commands in the Pentagon. There is considerable amount of administrative overlap which leads not only to inefficiency but means we must pay that many times more to duplicate those features in each command.

 

Unifying command wouldn't reduce the size of our troops or cost them anything. It would be about streamlining the Pentagon and reducing waste. It would also come at the cost of a number of jobs.

Absolutely. I've been preaching this for years, and I think our military would benefit as much as the taxpayers. We could even have a larger military to satisfy just about everybody with this scenario.

 

And of course, there's my old personal favorite, asphalt roads. Allow them to cure for 3 months before driving on them, the way Germany does, and we get Autobahn smooth roads that wear like iron. Tons of money saved, better driving experience, less damage to vehicles, probably fewer accidents, all for the price of some detours (which we'd get used to very quickly) and some jobs (which, now that you know it can be done, seem like paying people for work we don't need).

 

My point, to keep this on topic, is that it may not be necessary to simply cut funding. If we rethink how we're spending it in the first place, we could have our cake and eat it too. With a glass of milk.

[iNow]

My point, to keep this on topic, is that it may not be necessary to simply cut funding. If we rethink how we're spending it in the first place, we could have our cake and eat it too. With a glass of milk.

 

Kinda like healthcare.

[Dudde]

Once you knew about the new process saving tons of money and meaning a better quality of life in the long run, wouldn't the jobs now seem like wasted time and money?

 

I don't think I necessarily see it as a waste of time an money, we have to progress from somewhere, after all. It's just that after we identify the more efficient way, we should go there - I think that's where our system is breaking down.

 

To be off topic, I love milk with cake

 

and to be back on topic again, I still think I'd be willing to sacrifice a few extra bucks to throw some more money to work with into those departments that need it - I honestly believe somehow that I didn't pay enough taxes last year

[Mr Skeptic]

It would also come at the cost of a number of jobs.

 

You mean a savings of a number of jobs and their expense. Why not just do the streamlining, eliminate the extra jobs, and then just pay them to sit around and twiddle their thumbs (so as to not lose any jobs). Odds are, people would quickly stop worrying about the jobs that would be lost by firing said thumb-twiddlers.

 

---

If this is extra one-time funding, shouldn't it appear separately in the budget for the various projects? Ie, a "Here's this year's budget, and here's an extra from the stimulus. Don't expect the extra next year." kind of thing

[Pangloss]

It'll save money, but not "hundreds of billions". I've never seen any hard data to support that kind of figuring. But by all means please pass it along if you find some. And I've no problem with speculating that increased efficiency will help.

[iNow]

Pangloss - I'm not sure I follow your criticism. Is not "increased efficiency" a goal we should seek regardless of the scale of financial impact such improvements in efficiency would bring? Even if it saves only $10 net (meaning, the cost to implement is factored in, and the savings are STILL ten dollars), isn't it worth doing? I find it hard to argue against that, which it seems you're attempting with your comments above. I'm just looking for clarification here. You seem to be saying that "unless the savings are in the billions of dollars category, they can be safely ignored and improvements not made."

[Dudde]

It's funny how our sensationalist news covers the annoying parts of this topic - I really have to ask though, were there really protesters standing around chanting "secede" - even at the rally where Mr. Rick Perry was speaking? That would be awesome, I wonder if they know what'll happen to their tax rates when Texas becomes it's own... whatever it thinks it'll be able to survive as.

 

It seems to me that the conservative Governor down south is playing the crowds to help keep him a career politician, one of those parts of government that I agree has clearly become excessively large

[ParanoiA]

Now wait a second. Taxes come from the states. The federal government is a collection of states. I realize there will be some disparity between the states in terms of net gain or loss of federal revenue, but generally speaking any state that secedes just has to add that difference to their tax structure, in order to maintain present levels. In theory anyway, each citizen shouldn't be paying any more taxes at all.

 

Does anyone really think Texas couldn't make it on their own? Really?

[iNow]

It's funny how our sensationalist news covers the annoying parts of this topic - I really have to ask though, were there really protesters standing around chanting "secede" - even at the rally where Mr. Rick Perry was speaking? That would be awesome, I wonder if they know what'll happen to their tax rates when Texas becomes it's own... whatever it thinks it'll be able to survive as.

 

It seems to me that the conservative Governor down south is playing the crowds to help keep him a career politician, one of those parts of government that I agree has clearly become excessively large

Well, Rick Perry has to do something to gather supporters, as many people were pissed when he rejected federal bailout money to help with unemployment benefits.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Does anyone really think Texas couldn't make it on their own? Really?

I seriously doubt that we could defend our border against Mexico, especially in light of the current drug lord situation, all by ourselves. We'd be overwhelmed and crying for federal help in no time whatsoever.

Edited April 17, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[ecoli]

Something tells me when they're talking about the "ever-growing Washington bureaucracy" and an "unprecedented expansion of power" they're not talking about the Department of Education...

 

Yes, republicans are hypocrites. Will you ever stop being surprised by this?

 

Am I the only who thinks this smacks of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy?

[Mr Skeptic]

Does anyone really think Texas couldn't make it on their own? Really?

 

Didn't they already try that in 1861? Didn't turn out too well that time...

 

I think this data says that Texas pays more in taxes than it receives from the Federal government, but I could have gotten it backwards. In any case, the difference is almost nill.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/545_federal_balance_of_payments_per_capita.html

[ParanoiA]

Didn't they already try that in 1861? Didn't turn out too well that time...

 

 

Well yeah, they won't make it if we war with them, we'll slaughter them. I meant if we let them secede, does anyone really think they won't survive? I think they'll be just fine. They'll have their problems and chronic conditions, just like us and every other country in the world, but there's nothing in particular about them that would suggest they just couldn't make it work.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, republicans are hypocrites. Will you ever stop being surprised by this?

 

Am I the only who thinks this smacks of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy?

 

No you're not the only one. It's the problem with party worship. It's totally cool to be an ass as long as the other side was. It's all he-said she-said elementary school groupthink.

[Dudde]

Does anyone really think Texas couldn't make it on their own? Really?

 

I highly doubt it - the states are too interdependent on each other in the current system -

 

that isn't the issue at hand though. The problem I have with them seceding is that it's completely ridiculous, it wouldn't accomplish anything that they're trying to accomplish by doing so, and would make things quite a bit different for those who didn't want the secession in the first place

[bascule]

Yes, republicans are hypocrites. Will you ever stop being surprised by this?

 

I'm confused as to you got "republicans are hypocrites" from a statement I made for the purpose of pointing out that Pangloss's suggestion that increases in the budgets of departments like the DOE probably isn't what Texans are mad at. If it is, the language they're using to describe it is, well, strange.

 

That said, I'm still confused as to what they're referring to. Where is the "unprecedented expansion of power"?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss - I'm not sure I follow your criticism. Is not "increased efficiency" a goal we should seek regardless of the scale of financial impact such improvements in efficiency would bring? Even if it saves only $10 net (meaning, the cost to implement is factored in, and the savings are STILL ten dollars), isn't it worth doing? I find it hard to argue against that, which it seems you're attempting with your comments above. I'm just looking for clarification here. You seem to be saying that "unless the savings are in the billions of dollars category, they can be safely ignored and improvements not made."

 

Wow. That's an interesting interpretation of "I've no problem with speculating that increased efficiency will help."

 

My point was not that it won't save some money, but that it won't save enough money to allow us to keep the stimulus package's social spending, instead of returning to the normal budget as Obama wants to do (he said hundreds of billions of dollars, iNow). I see no source for that kind of speculation, either, which is why I asked for one.

 

All government programs should be constantly and rigorously analyzed for ways to improve efficiency. Anything less is a waste of MY MONEY.

 

Are you following my criticism now?

Edited April 17, 2009 by Pangloss

[ParanoiA]

I highly doubt it - the states are too interdependent on each other in the current system -

 

 

What in the world does Texas depend on that 23 million free people on 7% of the US current land mass can't achieve? You really believe that? And what makes you think no one will do business with Texas?

[Sisyphus]

How many federal assets are located within the borders of Texas? It seems like one effect of the pork-barrel game is that everything gets really spread out. If your tank is built with parts manufactured in 47 different states, if the various components of your infrastructure seemlessly ignores state borders, if your missile silos are spread throughout the heartland, if NASAs mission control, jet propulsion laboratory, and main launch site are all thousands of miles apart, etc., I imagine extracting one particular state and declaring independence would be extremely messy.

 

Besides, I doubt Texans would enjoy losing the status and priveleges of superpowerdom.

[ParanoiA]

Now that's a thoughtful answer. Actually, I was expecting someone to point out that Texas should have to compensate the union for federal assets. That could really break their back, depending on how tough we were on them. I wonder how much NASA has invested there.

[Pangloss]

Not to mention the $17 billion Texas is presently receiving from the stimulus act. The governor tried to turn down some of the money but the state legislature overrode him.

 

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/16/2693631-texas-senate-oks-stimulus-money-for-unemployment

[iNow]

All government programs should be constantly and rigorously analyzed for ways to improve efficiency. Anything less is a waste of MY MONEY.

 

Are you following my criticism now?

 

I suppose it was your use of the word "speculating" when talking about whether or not increased efficiency will help. I was like, "Of friggin' course increased efficiency will help!" It appears you were wondering whether it would help enough. Thanks for the clarification.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not to mention the $17 billion Texas is presently receiving from the stimulus act. The governor tried to turn down some of the money but the state legislature overrode him.

 

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/16/2693631-texas-senate-oks-stimulus-money-for-unemployment

 

Outstanding. Thanks for the link.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

President Obama discussed efficiency and innovation in this mornings weekly address.

 

 

 

-NPQpiSqAAs

 

 

 

I suppose it was a little light on specifics, but I also notice that they use these addresses to help shape the conversation, not so much to actually solve issues or close on problems.