Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (103)	8/30/2011 9:15:25 AM
From: Paul Smith	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

how stupid I am to be afraid of Perry and his religion. I don't think anybody thinks that you are stupid. I certainly do not. I think there is just a lack of understanding about your concern and whether Perry does or does not have a known history of using or abusing power regarding religious matters. should be named the I love Perry (and his religion) site. ....a bunch sitting around making sweet with each other - a sad waste. That seems a bit harsh. Perry's religion as a topic will likely fade over time and other topics will emerge. I encourage you to post about the views (on any topic) that you have that you would like to share. I'm assuming that polite feedback and discussion is all any of us want.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (103)	8/30/2011 9:42:14 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I don't think anyone called you stupid. I do think you were asked specifically what you were afraid Perry would do, though. If you can't explain that, maybe you should ask yourself why.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (103)	8/30/2011 11:32:38 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Well, I would disagree about loving Perry (and his religion). So far I like Perry and I'm not afraid of his religion. As has been suggested, we have a track record to look at with Perry. How much was religion a part of his official governorship of Texas? I suspect we will find out in the next few months. According to this site, this is the 2009 monthly federal civilian budget: www2.census.gov It isn't broken down in a way that I like, but it is a place to start. The two biggest employers listed on this site are military and the post office. If the post office is run per its mandate of being self budgeting, then I have no problem with the number of employees. The issue is that the market has changed. The internet/email is obviously reducing the amount of physical mail that is sent. So, the Post office is going to have to shrink to stay in budget. No operating in the red. That's change #1 The Department of Education has 5000 employees. in 2009 it had a budget of $32B. In 2011 the budget has more than doubled to $71B. I would eliminate most of this department. Let's get it down to a budget of $1B. (or eliminate altogether). en.wikipedia.org The Department of Health & Human Services has a budget of $74B. I would eliminate most of this. Let's get it down to a budget of $1B en.wikipedia.org The Department of Energy has 16,000 federal employees and 93,000 contract employees with a budget of $24B. I would keep all nuclear related functions and eliminate all functions related to energy conservation and all but bare minimum research positions related to domestic energy production. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Labor has an annual budge of about $100B. I would eliminate most functions. I would probably keep MSHA and OSHA. Don't see much else to keep. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Interior, I don't see anything that I would change there. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Homeland Security should be broken up into its component parts. US Secret Service, US Coast Guard and Customs & Border Protection are left intact (but not under DHS). FEMA functions are greatly reduced and otherwise delegated back to the states. TSA functions are limited to defining standards. Actual personnel would be paid for by the airlines and/or local governments. That looks like a savings of about $5B out of a total budget of $55B en.wikipedia.org Department of State, with a budget of $27B, not the biggest spender out there. There is some fat in there, but big savings aren't going to come from this department. en.wikipedia.org Department of Treasury, with a budget of $20B, not the biggest spender out there. The IRS is under the D of Tresury and has 106,000 employees. I think a flat tax or an elimination of income tax in favor of a consumption tax would greatly reduce the number of IRS employees. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Justice has a budget of $27B. Not sure what I would do here, but this department scares the hell out of me. With events that have happened under Janet Reno and Eric Holder there is clearly a problem with the charter of this department. So, I can't say what would change, but there would be changes. And it would likely end up in a reduction in the budget. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Defense is pretty big. 700,000 civilian employees, 1.4M military and 1.1M reserves. Current budget of about $525B. I believe that that the department of Defense should be about DEFENSE. In the recent past the DoD has been more of an arm of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy and has been used to ensure a steady flow of oil from the middle east. This has obviously caused entanglements that have not all been beneficial to this country. I would certainly make reductions at the DoD, but they would start with refocusing the department on defense. So where there would be overall reductions, I would probably increase spending on things that make us stronger defensively. I do believe that the idea of "a good offense is the best defense" has flaws when we are talking about national defense. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Agriculture would get the slash and burn treatment from me. With a budget of $132B and growing, I would smile while cutting this department down to nothing. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Commerce has a budget of about $10B. I don't see any meaningful changes there. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Housing and Urban Development with a budget of $47B gets the slash and burn treatment from me. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Transportation has a budget of about $79B. Some functions would be delegated to the states, otherwise, not too much savings here. en.wikipedia.org The Department of Veterans Affairs has a budget of about $87B. I wouldn't make any cuts here. en.wikipedia.org Others: EPA has a budget of $10B....Since it is being used as an anti-commerce department, might as well get rid of it or reduce the budget dramatically. Actually, I'd keep the engineers and scientists and get rid of the rest. en.wikipedia.org I believe that the direct reductions suggested would also reduce the size of the support staff, so there would be additional savings there.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (103)	8/30/2011 12:31:43 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 85487

oh yeah, and I would definitely stop foreign aid subsidies. This looks like about $40B right here. census.gov or about $49B here (this one includes military aid). census.gov