Barfo, What exactly does the department of education do? The more money it spends, the worse (and more expensive) education has become. In no sense are we obligated to pay $.10 at the federal level.
ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's 4,400 employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research. Focusing national attention on key educational issues. Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education. Also, the more money it spends, the older I get. Therefore aging is caused by federal education spending. Really, in no sense? I think you are exaggerating. barfo
That's true. We have to pay them next week for that. Or maybe they get paid monthly, I have no idea. Not sure what your point is. barfo
Really, in no sense. The money is wasted. The goals are not achieved. How about we chalk it up as the FAIL it is, and use the money for something useful, like paying down the deficit. You asked "Give me an example of what a 'TV' is, then. What bills aren't we obligated to pay?" You got your answer, though you answered yourself as BB30 pointed out. States and localities pay the bulk of education expenses. They can pay it all. http://www.cfr.org/education/us-edu...ldwide-earns-poor-grades-cfr-scorecard/p30939 U.S. Education Slipping in Ranks Worldwide, Earns Poor Grades on CFR Scorecard
ob·li·ga·tion ˌäbliˈgāSHən/ noun noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations 1. an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. barfo
Yes you do. But you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You asked for an example of costs that we don't have binding contracts to pay, unlike the home mortgage analogy. I gave you an example. Now you're changing your argument. Typical barfo discussion.
I'm impressed you know how to look up a word in the dictionary. What about it? We are not morally or legally bound to pay for a department of education. It was enacted by congress, it's ever increasing budgets approved by congress; congress can do away with it just as well.
If they can't borrow to pay for it, they'll have to cut things that aren't obligations like this one. Actual obligations are the T-Bills / IOUs they've been issuing to the public to pay for the dept of education and other worthless follies. There's something like a contract that obligates the govt. trust funds to pay benefits. That's it. Everything else is not an obligation.
If you want to define obligation to exclude legal obligations, then I guess you can remove T-bills and SS also. There's no reason why we have to pay anything at all. We can just be tea partiers and not pay anything. What could be the harm? barfo
We're obligated to spend what the 12 spending bills congress is supposed to pass says we're obligated to spend. http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ Federal budget 101. Perfect for you barfo. Now use your dictionary to look up the word "discretionary."
I agree that there are a lot of redundant functions and departments in the federal government and that there many areas where cuts can and should be made, but they mostly add up to a drop in the bucket compared to defense spending and entitlements for Social Security and Medicare. You could strip the Federal bureaucracy to the bone and we'd still be facing an insolvent future. Until and unless we raise the retirement age to more accurately reflect average life expectancy and until and unless the health care system in this country gets completely overhauled to deal with the way it's administered and paid for and until and unless we stop overspending on defense nothing is going to get fixed and we'll keep fighting over these secondary and tertiary issues.
You are just repeating your point that congress could choose to spend less; I will just repeat my point that they have not made that choice, and until they do the current spending level is the law of the land. barfo
Sure, I'd be happy to see defense cut by at least 1/3. When you and I get elected to congress, I guess we can cosponsor that bill. barfo
Interest on the national debt was $415B for FY 2013. That was at near 0% interest rate. Let's call it 1% for barfo's sake. Imagine it at 2%, like when everyone that is willing to buy T-Bills at near 0% interest has bought their fill. Something has to be cut by the $415B new interest to be paid. Or we could just raise everyone's taxes by 1/3 to cover the difference. Not the rich, everyone.
