Some of those things would be handled better without the government - international trading and food shipments come to mind (having done been a food exporter).We've have more food related illnesses than ever recently - with increased govt "oversight." Instead of getting blamed for this, they use food-scare tactics to increase their control.
Social security would be better off out of the hands of government. If a private pension provider steals your funds, they might go to prison. If the government does it, they just raise your taxes to cover the theft.
CIA/FBI - have these massive agencies really improved your life?
No passports? Great. They are simply a way for the government to restrict the movement of its citizens.
Privatized postal service? It works great in Japan. I wouldn't trust the current US postal service with anything important.
Remember, there's still 10% of the revenue left over, which leaves plenty if spend wisely. Common sense immigration procedures, and effective (not bloated or politicized) military.
Americans love and trust their government more than any country in the world. And they have been trained to be like children, with the government as "daddy." (Or mommy.) That can only end in oppression and/or bankruptcy.
In a couple of posts, you seem like you have noodle that works; after reading this latest post, I'm wondering where the guy with some common sense went. What happened to actually thinking about what you are saying and relate that to the overall impact of cutting 90% of the federal budget. Better yet, please list what you think you can have for 10% of the budget. Do you seriously think we can have any sort of "effective" military? What does effective mean to you? How much do you think it costs to put a carrier to sea for a month? Would you mothball the fleet? You think we would be able to stop our borders from being overrun? How? What are you going to do with all the federal prisons and prisoners? How will you stop terrorist attacks with no intelligence agencies or investigatory branches? Who will run the federal communications? You think individual states can agree on sharing resources and protecting resources when necessary instead of exploiting everything for a short term gain? Who do you think will be making decisions for each state? You don't think some states will opt to form a mini- United States, while others will try to form their own nation? How long do you think it will be before one state declares war on another when some states aren't able to get food, fuel, water and/or money to keep their populations from starving or freezing to death? Three years? Five?
If you were involved with food exporting on a major scale, it was with all the federal oversight and agreements that paved your way. But exporting will be the least of our worries, or perhaps the worst, when staring people find out food is being exported for profit and letting them die. Who will safeguard what we import? You think it will be a scare tactic when babies begin dying from eating baby food processed in China and stuffed full of melamine?
You actually believe food inspectors and food safety officials should be blamed for every foodborne illness that occurs? Blaming them is like blaming a fire department for fires starting. Or law enforcement that can't prevent every crime. Without them, who would close down Sunland Peanuts that was spreading Salmonella Bredeney tainted peanut butter all over this time last year? You think they would have stopped manufacturing on their own and shut their business down until everything was clean? If you think that, you have some serious rethinking to do. in fact, you need to re-think now, as your scare tactics comment is so wacky that I can't take it seriously. It's like saying the CDC doesn't deal with a crisis everyday, so what's the point of keeping them. What about air traffic controllers and schools. You think the small pittance paid in property taxes pays for schools? The feds pay around $2500 per student per year to give schools enough money to stay open. That's tens of billions per year. And that doesn't include colleges. Might as well close the schools. We don't need no stinking education, anyway.
Social security would be better off in private hands because the privateers might go to prison for stealing the money? That's your rationale? Good grief. You can't put them in prison when there isn't enough money to waste on the prisons. Did you not consider this? Who would investigate and prosecute that kind of crime, anyway. Not the feds. Who would hammer out all new judicial requirements for intra-state and inter-state crime and punishment issues.
What do you know about the CIA and FBI? You think it's like a Tom Cruise movie? I can speak with certainty that without them it would be open season on the US for terrorists. How could we stop that? Who could catch them afterward? Neighborhood watch?
jeez. You think passports restrict the movements of its citizens? It's not getting out that's the problem. How far would you get trying to enter another country without a passport? How easy do you think it should be to get back into the states?
You wouldn't trust the us postal service with anything important? I'll bet you do all the time. Who would organize and privatize a national post office? You think the rates would be under $1 per letter? packages would go through the roof.
10% is enough if spent wisely? What cereal box did you get that from? Once again, I'd love to see a list. By the way, what happens to the millions of newly unemployed, the sick and the old? Without federal subsidies, where do they live? How do they eat? Maybe you favor just letting as many people die as it takes to reach a sustainable balance?
"That can end only in bankruptcy or oppression"? Are you ill?
Do you have schizophrenia? I ask because after reading your last few posts, it seems like two different people wrote them. unfortunately, it seems the one with common sense has disappeared
