Would the Country Survive

[PsyOps]

All this doom-day rhetoric over the sequester makes me wonder what people really think about their survival in terms of government. Even with the sequester government spending still increases by about $15 billion from last year. The cuts are only around 2.5% of the overall budget. Are Americans really convinced we will crash and burn with these cuts? The polls seem to reflect this paranoia.

So the question is… what if we did away with every government program: Obamacare, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, DHS, EPA, FDA, FAA… all of them except for the DoD. Shove all these programs at the state level. The only job the federal government would have is passing laws that are aimed at protecting us (while creating agencies or programs to provide for us), and funding our military. Would this country survive?

Have we become so dependent on the federal government that we wouldn’t? When citizens’ feet are put to the fire, would they pull up their bootstraps, get blisters on their hands to survive; or would they cave and cower into a corner claiming they just can’t do it without our government providing these things for us?

When Americans are convinced that we may not survive a 2.5% cut in the federal budget, I think we have plunged into the abyss of complete dependency. It really saddens me that the people of this country are that pathetic. What’s worse is we have a government that knows it and feeds scary rhetoric into it.

 

[aps45819]

We'd also have to get rid of the regulations that force us to be dependent on the government.
You can't go to a farm and buy a gallon of milk because the calls that a crime.

 

[Vince]

I think there are many other places to cut costs that should be implemented. All money going out of this country to Foreign governments needs to stop. We are broke. When will we stop acting like we have all the money in the world and giving it away to other countries, and most of those countries don't even like us.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You mean return govt to what the Constitution intended?

That's crazy talk!

Yes, I think we'd survive, but acceptance wouldn't happen overnight.

 

[huntr1]

All this doom-day rhetoric over the sequester makes me wonder what people really think about their survival in terms of government. Even with the sequester government spending still increases by about $15 billion from last year. The cuts are only around 2.5% of the overall budget. Are Americans really convinced we will crash and burn with these cuts? The polls seem to reflect this paranoia.

So the question is… what if we did away with every government program: Obamacare, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, DHS, EPA, FDA, FAA… all of them except for the DoD. Shove all these programs at the state level. The only job the federal government would have is passing laws that are aimed at protecting us (while creating agencies or programs to provide for us), and funding our military. Would this country survive?

Have we become so dependent on the federal government that we wouldn’t? When citizens’ feet are put to the fire, would they pull up their bootstraps, get blisters on their hands to survive; or would they cave and cower into a corner claiming they just can’t do it without our government providing these things for us?

When Americans are convinced that we may not survive a 2.5% cut in the federal budget, I think we have plunged into the abyss of complete dependency. It really saddens me that the people of this country are that pathetic. What’s worse is we have a government that knows it and feeds scary rhetoric into it.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to fly in an airplane that is not inspected and certified by the FAA. You want uncontrolled airspace everywhere with no air traffic controllers? No seperation between military test/training operations (think live fire) and civillian aircraft? No coordination of flight operations acroos the country or across national borders? Kill the FAA and you'd lose all those. No thank you.

 

[kwillia]

Please remember that though the cuts are only 2.5% of the overall budget, all agencies were directed to spend as if the regular budget increases were going to be put in place once they passed a budget. That means all budgets have been exceeded for 5 months out of a 12 month fiscal year... and I do believe that they will be spending as planned for March too... the furloughs and cuts would take affect starting in April.

This is why sequestration will be so drastic... the 2.5% isn't being spread out over a 12 month budget.

 

[kwillia]

You mean return govt to what the Constitution intended?

That's crazy talk!

Yes, I think we'd survive, but acceptance wouldn't happen overnight.

Those with guns will have a much better chance of surviving.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't know about you, but I don't want to fly in an airplane that is not inspected and certified by the FAA. You want uncontrolled airspace everywhere with no air traffic controllers? No seperation between military test/training operations (think live fire) and civillian aircraft? No coordination of flight operations acroos the country or across national borders? Kill the FAA and you'd lose all those. No thank you.

We don’t need a government agency to do the actual inspections. I’m not suggesting doing away with regulations and rules that work towards the safety of the general public. Certainly the government has a place in devising the standards for things like safe flight, roads, food, medicine, etc…

Our government has created an environment where we feel if they cut spending, do away with any agency, reduce the size of government in any way we just can’t survive. If you don’t feel safe flying you wont. Honestly I think the private sector would do a far better job at guaranteeing our safety in the sky than the government. But where the government has failed over and over – welfare, social security, education, energy, healthcare, etc… - we still feel a need to look to them to make sure no one falls through any cracks.

When we worry about 2.5% less government (even though it’s not that at all); that the country will simply crumble to a heap of ashes; doesn’t that tell you that we have far too much dependence on government? I’m trying to swim through the insanity over all of this and trying to figure out why we feel government is the answer to all of these things. I personally think I can survive. I will figure out a way. It would be hard, but life wasn’t meant to be easy with guaranteed outcomes.

 

[tommyjo]

So the question is… what if we did away with every government program: Obamacare, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, DHS, EPA, FDA, FAA… all of them except for the DoD. Shove all these programs at the state level.
QUOTE]

You start and end with a rather intelligent premise and blow with this silly statement.

Your thinking is just wrong on so many levels.

1. Why would you think the states could handle these programs any better? (hint: they can't)

2. You think income disparity is bad now...what will happen when these programs are turned over to the likes of Mississippi and Louisiana when compared with NY, MD or CA?

3. Pension plans are breaking CA and IL...you think shoving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is going to make those situations BETTER?

Shoving programs to the states does nothing but make the problems worse.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So the question is… what if we did away with every government program: Obamacare, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, DHS, EPA, FDA, FAA… all of them except for the DoD. Shove all these programs at the state level.
QUOTE]

You start and end with a rather intelligent premise and blow with this silly statement.

Your thinking is just wrong on so many levels.

1. Why would you think the states could handle these programs any better? (hint: they can't)

2. You think income disparity is bad now...what will happen when these programs are turned over to the likes of Mississippi and Louisiana when compared with NY, MD or CA?

3. Pension plans are breaking CA and IL...you think shoving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is going to make those situations BETTER?

Shoving programs to the states does nothing but make the problems worse.

Yea, because FEMA does a bangup job compared to local govt.....

So, what happens whenn all these liberl cities fail? Who the hell do you think will back them up?

 

[huntr1]

We don’t need a government agency to do the actual inspections. I’m not suggesting doing away with regulations and rules that work towards the safety of the general public. Certainly the government has a place in devising the standards for things like safe flight, roads, food, medicine, etc…

Our government has created an environment where we feel if they cut spending, do away with any agency, reduce the size of government in any way we just can’t survive. If you don’t feel safe flying you wont. Honestly I think the private sector would do a far better job at guaranteeing our safety in the sky than the government. But where the government has failed over and over – welfare, social security, education, energy, healthcare, etc… - we still feel a need to look to them to make sure no one falls through any cracks.

When we worry about 2.5% less government (even though it’s not that at all); that the country will simply crumble to a heap of ashes; doesn’t that tell you that we have far too much dependence on government? I’m trying to swim through the insanity over all of this and trying to figure out why we feel government is the answer to all of these things. I personally think I can survive. I will figure out a way. It would be hard, but life wasn’t meant to be easy with guaranteed outcomes.

It's actually CHEAPER for the feds to do the inspections, procedure development, chart creation, etc. FAA just spent $3 million to have a contractor create 10 approach procedures as a test. That's $300K each. Fed FAA employees create them for $60K each. 1/5 the cost of having the contractors do it. And that's including all personnel costs, not just straight salary and equipment costs.

 

[PsyOps]

It's actually CHEAPER for the feds to do the inspections, procedure development, chart creation, etc. FAA just spent $3 million to have a contractor create 10 approach procedures as a test. That's $300K each. Fed FAA employees create them for $60K each. 1/5 the cost of having the contractors do it. And that's including all personnel costs, not just straight salary and equipment costs.

I can’t prove or disprove your point except to say that the government can price anything anyway they want to justify their existence.

Overbid contracts are a procedural problem. It’s a disease within the government. The purpose behind pushing these things to contractors was to make it cheaper, and it resulted in the just the opposite.

Can I chalk you up as being in the ‘we can’t survive category’?

 

[PsyOps]

You start and end with a rather intelligent premise and blow with this silly statement.

Your thinking is just wrong on so many levels.

1. Why would you think the states could handle these programs any better? (hint: they can't)

2. You think income disparity is bad now...what will happen when these programs are turned over to the likes of Mississippi and Louisiana when compared with NY, MD or CA?

3. Pension plans are breaking CA and IL...you think shoving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is going to make those situations BETTER?

Shoving programs to the states does nothing but make the problems worse.

Here we go again with you jumping and telling people they are wrong and not articulating why.

1. Please go into detail how the fed handles things better than the states. Please make sure you frame your answer in context of the constitution.

2. I don’t care about income disparity. People make money commensurate with their efforts and desires. I care about whether you think you can survive without the government. I know you, being the leftist liberal you are, don’t think you can.

3. Yes. Pensions and medicare/mediaid have nothing to do with each other.

In for a ‘problem’ to be shoved to the states, there has to be a problem to begin with. And these problems do not dictate that the government fix them. But the constitution demands most of what’s being done at the federal level be handled at the state.

But I’ll chalk up you as well as: you will not survive without the government.

Lastely... please learn to use the 'Reply w/ Quote' function.

 

[bcp]

I think there are many other places to cut costs that should be implemented. All money going out of this country to Foreign governments needs to stop. We are broke. When will we stop acting like we have all the money in the world and giving it away to other countries, and most of those countries don't even like us.

Makes sense to me.
lets see, we borrow money from China, that we will have to pay back, then we turn around and loan that money to some other country, that will never pay us back.
I think the U.S needs to get out of the middle man job and just let the end borrower go straight to china.
the up side, when the end borrower decides not to repay china, we move in and help china (like they need it with a billion man army) in their war. China is so happy that they reduce the amount we owe while reimbersing us for the money spent helping them.

 

[bcp]

You mean return govt to what the Constitution intended?

That's crazy talk!

Yes, I think we'd survive, but acceptance wouldn't happen overnight.

there would be some serious riots and thefts when the first welfare checks failed to show up in the box.

good thing we have guns,, oh, wait....