[Nuggie]

Originally Posted by Sidelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh btw, to the asshole earlier in this thread (forgot which asshole it was and don't feel like finding the post) who made a shitty comment about my heritage, I am 1/2 indian and an enrolled Colville Tribal member. I just happened to be light skinned, well.... BECAUSE I'M HALF WHITE, YOU FAG. There are surprisingly light skinned blacks that are half and half out there too, fucking "duh".

I knew a few "white" colored American Mexicans. That dont have "white" parents. The shit happens. You take a georgeous pic, dont let the RNF haters get you down.

Originally Posted by moklianne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did they break down the costs?

Originally Posted by Nuggie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

my employer (largest company in our industry) couldn't (refused to) afford the taxes on the plan they offered us starting in 2014.

If that doesn't answer your question I guess my reading comprehension is lacking. The taxes was the (publicly disclosed) deciding factor in the plan change. Maybe they blamed Obamacare for a change they wanted to make anyways? I dont know.

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One could argue that the way they've dealt with National Security in the last 50 years has both jeopardized our safety and cost us a great deal financially.

One could also argue that having the most advanced and feared military in the world has kept other countries from invading. There is no way to tell how much we have saved from using the "Big Stick" theory of Teddy's. Notice how the Syrian gov became willing to negotiate after we cleaned up our plate a bit and put a target on them?



LONG REPLY BELOW

TLDR version: States would be better at administering nearly all of the programs that the Feds deemed necessary to cram down our throats.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. The scientific development of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

2. Transit to the moon.

3. CERN.

4. A system of public freeways spanning our continent.

5. Hoover dam.

6. National and global weather forecasting apparatus.

7. US Geological Survey.

8. National parks.

9. China's One Child Policy, which despite some negative collateral effects, helped alleviate uncontrollable overpopulation in an already overpopulated region, contributing to the prevention of 200-400 million births.

10. Chinese currency/economic manipulation that is systematically destroying the unprotected American middle class.

11. But then, most countries don't have a centuries-long streak of an obstructionist, dumbfuck, anti-gov GOP undermining the efficacy of the government.

Other countries' health care? I dont care about their problems, only our own. But this is really comparing apples to oranges. You compare a country(USA) with a pop near 330million to countries with populations of: Germany(80 mil), UK 64mil, France 63mil, Italy 60mil, Spain 46 mil, Denmark 5 mil to name a few. These countries have populations barely twice the size of our most populous state: California at 38 mil. These programs would be better administered at the state level.

1. There are pro's and cons to nuclear energy. While I like using the aforementioned big stick theory I feel that the use of nukes on a population is a horrendous thing.

2. I'm all about scientific R&D, but the private sector can do these things cheaper and more efficiently. Yes, it was first done by the government, but if there had been a "need" for these things then privately funded companies could have done it better.

3. couldn't care less how europe spends their money.

4. we had roads that spanned the continent already that were funded by local/state governments.

5. This is a good one, but like I mentioned before if there was a need for this then the private sector could have done it cheaper and more efficiently.

6. Good one, these I'm sure have saved lives.

7. I guess i dont know enough about what the USGS does to repond to this.

8. National parks could be managed from a state level.

9. I've heard of horror stories about this policy. But I dont care about China and their problems.

10. the Chinese are trying things to help themselves. While the Open Door Policy was a good idea in theory, John Hay and his counter parts were operating under the assumption that China would play fair. not counterfeit american products that has driven out manufacturing jobs. The way things used to work was that if you didnt want to(couldn't afford to) pursue higher education for a high skilled job there were plenty of factory jobs you could pick up and live off. Not anymore. I bet some of the people looking for work today could use one of the millions of jobs lost to Asia. Good job from the Feds helping the unemployement rate go up.

11. Heh, if there wasn't someone to keep the Socialists in check then we would all be living in cities much like Detroit. Or perhaps we would be living in a society where we all earned the same wage, which strips the peoples ability to better themselves through their labor.

Anti federal government? you're damn right. Other than keeping an army advanced and large enough to protect the nation there isn't anything they can do that the individual states couldn't do equally as good or better. The states can better tailor policies to suit their individual needs, rather than lump everyone into a policy that is good for some but bad for others.


Also, as Orruar said, these are very very small parts of the budget or debt. The big things that are killing us are financing promises made that couldn't be kept with sound book keeping.

Quote from that link:

Total Social Security expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the Federal expenditures of $3.684 trillion.[