What % of government could be eliminated tomorrow?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
If government spending were cut by 25% across the board with an accompanying cut in taxes, there would be a severe economic downturn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this necessarily follows. Some sectors of the economy would turn down and others would turn up. The unproductive (subsidized farms, base towns, broke retirees) would suffer, but the productive would prosper, and the net effect could be positive or negative (or short-term negative, long-term positive - even for the displaced sectors.).

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Take 1. Subtract half. Now we have 1/2. Subtract half. Now we have 1/4. Subtract half. Now we have 1/8. Continue ad infinitum and there's still government!



[/ QUOTE ]


yes well eventually you will have partial people. unless you are talking about 1/2 a dude workin @ the DMV. Can you please stop rattling Neilso's cage and make a point.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A way of disbanding could be to cut spending every 6 months by 50%, and obviously to cut laws and regulations concordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then the government would never go away. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it would. When free market arbitration gets in the first stages of maturity, then the state quickly becomes visible as a criminal and bankrupt organization. Game over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take 1. Subtract half. Now we have 1/2. Subtract half. Now we have 1/4. Subtract half. Now we have 1/8. Continue ad infinitum and there's still government!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this would be pretty sweet and...dare I say...I may just prefer this to anarchy. I mean eventually we would get down to like 5 guys who are 'the government' and then 4, 3, 2, 1...1 with a smaller budget, and smaller, and smaller. I would be loving life if I could just follow this guy around in my spare time and bust his balls! hahaa

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of doing a thread on this, but this thread will work.

The correct answer is: not much. This is because society is organized around the existence of government. Just as one example, there are tens of millions of senior citizens who rely on Social Security and Medicare to survive. In a pure free market, they would have had to save to retire. But they didn't because they assumed the government would take care of them. There would be a dramatic increase in 90 year olds working if the government cut those programs.

There is a high implementation cost for privatising retirement funding and many other private solutions. Other examples include farm subsidies (rural communities), defense money (base towns) and education (college towns). If government spending were cut by 25% across the board with an accompanying cut in taxes, there would be a severe economic downturn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's look at some basic figures. The 2000 federal budget was $1.8 trillion and the 2008 budget is $2.9 trillion. A 25% cut would = a cut of $ .725 trillion, leaving a 2008 budget of $2.175 trillion.

Would it really cause a horrible downturn to revert to roughly FY 2000 spending levels? I don't know for sure, but I don't feel comfortable taking that as a given.

By the way, the Iraq war is costing over $ .1 trillion per year (plus major unaccounted for costs in wear and tear on equipment that has not yet been refurbished or replaced).

There is also a lot of difference between a 25% across-trhe-board decrease and targeting certain sectors for major cuts. Speculation gets complicated, no doubt. At least on the surface I don't see why the USA might not be able to revert to roughly FY 2000 spending levels (approximately adjusted for inflation) without causing a major downturn.

$ 1.8 trillion > $2.9 trillion is how much of an increase in 8 years? Whatever that rate of increase, it far outpaces inflation.

Well, I blame Bush and the Neo-Cons and their "toe-the-line" Congressional elite followers for nearly all of it. Also, in my guesstimation, the USA is well on its way to spending itself right off a cliff... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(THUD)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If government spending were cut by 25% across the board with an accompanying cut in taxes, there would be a severe economic downturn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as being definitive. There certainly would be a severe economic impact. To conclude, without argument, that it would be downturn seems to presume that government intervention is helping "the economy".

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take 1. Subtract half. Now we have 1/2. Subtract half. Now we have 1/4. Subtract half. Now we have 1/8. Continue ad infinitum and there's still government!



[/ QUOTE ]


yes well eventually you will have partial people. unless you are talking about 1/2 a dude workin @ the DMV. Can you please stop rattling Neilso's cage and make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

One midgit at the DMV running from office to office...um sorry...slowly walking from office to office passing himself forms and signing them in triplicate and gossiping with himself and telling you to get in line A or line B after you get to the front of line 1 and talk to him only to wind up talking to him an hour later in line A.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a high implementation cost for privatising retirement funding and many other private solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH?? how do you figure? Vanguard or Scottrade accounts cost almost nothing and far far out perform SSI

[/ QUOTE ]
I was specifically thinking of Social Security (SSI) in terms of implementation cost, but it works for other programs. Right now, people working largely fund today's retirees. If you eliminated SSI, workers would start saving more for their retirement. However, retirees need the money they are getting from today's workers to survive. If they don't go back to work, you will need a massive temporary increase in retirement spending so there's enough money for people to save for their retirement and pay for today's retirees.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If government spending were cut by 25% across the board with an accompanying cut in taxes, there would be a severe economic downturn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as being definitive. There certainly would be a severe economic impact. To conclude, without argument, that it would be downturn seems to presume that government intervention is helping "the economy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is almost certainly (98.5%) a false assumption. I will grant that there are several areas that are depend ant on government. But plz show me an area where the economy is actually helped.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If government spending were cut by 25% across the board with an accompanying cut in taxes, there would be a severe economic downturn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as being definitive. There certainly would be a severe economic impact. To conclude, without argument, that it would be downturn seems to presume that government intervention is helping "the economy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is almost certainly (98.5%) a false assumption. I will grant that there are several areas that are depend ant on government. But plz show me an area where the economy is actually helped.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Patent office

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a high implementation cost for privatising retirement funding and many other private solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH?? how do you figure? Vanguard or Scottrade accounts cost almost nothing and far far out perform SSI

[/ QUOTE ]
I was specifically thinking of Social Security (SSI) in terms of implementation cost, but it works for other programs. Right now, people working largely fund today's retirees. If you eliminated SSI, workers would start saving more for their retirement. However, retirees need the money they are getting from today's workers to survive. If they don't go back to work, you will need a massive temporary increase in retirement spending so there's enough money for people to save for their retirement and pay for today's retirees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cut spending in unneeded sectors ( there are plenty ) to cover the shortfall. These people payed SSI in good faith and should not be cut off. But I don't see how we cant fulfill our obligation to them and create a viable alternative for the rest of us.

IMO Social security is one of the easiest things to fix.