Drawing the line

Blackbart · Apr 7, 2017

I find myself being conflicted between taking a stand on fiscal responsibility and budget for groups that manage our natural resources and public lands and I'm sure I must not be alone.

I cannot get behind the attacks against cutting budgets and what I feel are blindly liberal agendas. I want smaller government but don't feel that has to means selling off public lands or allowing our parks and public lands to be decimated by bad policy. We still need to manage and take care of our lands so where do we draw that line?

VAspeedgoat · Apr 7, 2017

I'm right there with you. I wish I could find an answer.

This thread may not end well depending on the commentators.

npaden · Apr 7, 2017

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a line at all, not even a very wide path.

There are politicians on one extreme side and politicians on the other extreme side with most of us somewhere in the middle.

Bi-partisan doesn't seem to be an option any more.

406LIFE · Apr 7, 2017

npaden said:
Bi-partisan doesn't seem to be an option any more.

I whole heartedly agree with this, as disappointing as it makes me.

For me, public lands are not a #1 issue for me and if I am forced to chose a candidate based on only one platform plank, it can't be that for me.

That doesn't mean that I just sit back. Anytime Ben Lamb gets on and rallies us, I am on it immediately. I call, email, and visit whoever I need to so that my public lands aren't stolen.

JoseCuervo · Apr 7, 2017

You can cut budges on parks, PBS, and Planned Parenthood all you want, and you won't affect any sort of fiscal balance/improvement.

Go look at where we spend our money, and then you will figure out where you need to draw the line.

dannyb278 · Apr 7, 2017

Jose, Meals on Wheels is driving this country to the poorhouse, didn't you get the memo!

LWC55 · Apr 7, 2017

Most folks are for cutting the budget.....as long as it is not from the areas where they derive benefits of some kind.

MTGomer · Apr 7, 2017

JoseCuervo said:
.

Go look at where we spend our money, and then you will figure out where you need to draw the line.

Global policing, nation building, military industrial complex. Illegal and unconstitutional wars.

These are the real issues bankrupting us and as someone pointed out in another thread, our fiscal situation is the greatest threat to public land and they seem to be one thing both parties or solidly united in their positions on

ChrisS · Apr 7, 2017

While smaller government may be a worthwhile goal, the word "small" doesn't lend itself to being defined easily. Small to me may mean something completely different to a rancher in Nebraska or a real estate developer in New Jersey. Thus, you can get a whole lot of people pushing for small government, but pulling in all sorts of directions. US government spending increased substantially during and after the great depression just as the country was itself undergoing massive industrialization. In 1910, 31% of the country's workforce was involved in farming compared to just 0.7% today. Modern industrial nations take a lot to run and, frankly, we can't turn the clock back to an economy where 30% of the labor force worked on a farm in some capacity and a government to match. On a per capita basis and compared to other industrialized nations of the world, the US government (minus defense) is relatively small based on population size and GDP. The US collects less federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP than the majority of industrialized nations. On average, federal government spending has hovered up and down around 18-22% of GDP since WWII ramped down. Ultimately, though, the US spends a lot of money on the military.

Gr8bawana · Apr 7, 2017

LWC55 said:
Most folks are for cutting the budget.....as long as it is not from the areas where they derive benefits of some kind.

^^^This^^^

MooseCaboose · Apr 7, 2017

Entitlements and Military Offense Spending.

That's the majority of the budget. We have a seesaw right now. R's get in and cut entitlements, but increase offense. Dems do the opposite. Government continually grows.

Nobody wants to risk their career taking on these structures. So here we are.

Frenchy · Apr 7, 2017

Great Post.

Frenchy · Apr 7, 2017

Great Post. ChrisS. Its all about priorities.

MooseCaboose · Apr 13, 2017

This chart really puts into perspective the places where spending needs to be curtailed. You'll see the $44 Billion used for natural resources sure sounds like a lot of money until you see it dwarfed by the real behemoths of the budget problem (healthcare, entitlements, Social Security, Military). We sure need to make some changes and fast. But cutting conservation spending isn't going to fix anything.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...ederal-budget-where-the-money-really-goe.aspx

LWC55 · Apr 13, 2017

Is Income Security a fancy word for Welfare?

Gr8bawana · Apr 13, 2017

There is nothing on that chart above natural resources & environment that should be cut.
It's funny how LWC55 was spot on when he said "people were all for cutting the budget as long as it's not from the areas where they derive benefits of some kind."

LWC55 · Apr 13, 2017

Gr8bawana said:
There is nothing on that chart above natural resources & environment that should be cut.
It's funny how LWC55 was spot on when he said "people were all for cutting the budget as long as it's not from the areas where they derive benefits of some kind."

Thanks for the kind words. But regarding your thought that nothing above natural resources & environment that should be cut. I have to disagree. I think it should ALL be cut to some extent. I would like our government to not spend more than the revenue it brings in. Everyone would have to sacrifice. That may be a pipe dream but printing money and going into extreme debt is not a sustainable model.

MooseCaboose · Apr 17, 2017

It's about investing smarter, getting more return for the dollar. Innovating. All things the government is terrible at. Our return per dollar spent is atrocious.

mdhunter · Apr 17, 2017

Until we can agree on the need or importance of balancing the budget and actually commit to doing it, the rest is just noise. With zippo bipartisanship everyone will just try to protect their pet projects or areas of interest until one day the chit really does hit the fan.

Leader lead and make tough decisions. I haven't seen a whole lot of that with fiscal sanity in a long, long, time.

HSi-ESi · Apr 17, 2017

Gr8bawana said:
There is nothing on that chart above natural resources & environment that should be cut.

Veteran Benefits is OK to cut?

Drawing the line

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page