In response to:

Debunking Sequester Hysteria from the Big Spenders in Washington

kenneth416 Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 10:28 AM

I am a severe budget Hawk, and believe that the federal government could/should be shrunk by 25% or so (and could provide many fertile areas to accomplish this shrinkage). However, I am realistic enough to understand that the federal government budget can not be brought into balance within 10 years without doing significant harm to the overall economy.

Join the Debate!

All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.

Cappmann Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 1:30 PM

On the other hand, ceasing the handouts and encouraging (forcing?) people to show a little initiative and find work could just have the opposite effect, and do far more good than harm to the economy. The entitlement society liberals have been forming for at least the last 5 decades is the problem. They have made sloth lucrative and demeaned initiative and the work ethic. And, IMHO, the entire purpose, at least for those at the top, is to ensure their continued power.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Cappmann Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 1:36 PM

Unions (where substandard work seems to actually be encouraged) and generational welfare, as well as the medicaid,/foodstamp/WIC, etc handouts are where most of government expenses go. This and the frivolous waste on ridiculous programs and grants should be the focus on cuts. I think, with the financial problems we have, that non-productive scientific grants, Arts grants, and other things of this nature should be halted, at least until we're again solvent. If I can't even pay MY bills, I don't go out and buy a painting for my livingroom, or pay someone to come to my home and research how fast my grass grows. The government should be budget-constrained just like (most) people are. Cutting frivolous waste alone could very well balance the...

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Texas Chris Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:56 AM

The federal budget could be cut, year one, by 30% and the economy would do nothing but profit. That's over $1 trillion year one with ONLY positive economic effects.

But you can't have the nanny state at home and the empire abroad.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Stuart95 Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 10:59 AM

You say the economy will suffer "significant harm" if the federal government does not run deficits for the next 10 years - even though we'll borrow another five or 10 trillion dollars from China, add it to the national debt, and pay interest on it forever.

To choose just one aspect of why your assessment may be wrong: Can you tell us what that money will be used for? An easier question is, what have the trillions of new debt Obama (and Bush) incurred done for the country - besides double the national debt? That money certainly didn't help the economic growth or employment rates.

I suggest that those trillions were passed into the hands of special-interest groups, as will future trillions. I call that "significant harm".

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:16 AM

If one is a true "budget Hawk", then one's understanding is that the government is the problem and that money in the private sector is always, repeat, always, better than money in the hands of government bureaucrats. Government spending on continued welfare and extended unemployment does not help the economy. It simply props up certain people and creates dependency. As Ben Franklin said, "the easier you make it to be poor, the more poor you will have." This may seem crass, but it is true. The economy is better off as a whole when people have incentives to be productive and create wealth. In turn, more wealth equals more tax revenues, and so on and so on. It is way pass time for the US government to go on a diet so the economy can get fat.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Stuart95 Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 12:57 PM

In question is the difference between a wage-earner deciding how to spend his earnings and a politician deciding how to spend the wage-earners earnings. Most people have the correct gut-reaction that it's not fair that wage-earners give all their money to politicians, but they don't understand that the self-interested spending of the wage-earner builds the economy while the self-interested spending of the politician slows the economy.

That makes it hard for most people to analyze the damage that increased taxation, government subsidies, budget deficits, etc. do to the economy. And so we continue to vote for people whose self-interest is making the government bigger and bigger.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment