USA should spend significantly less

I have waited for you to post another comment so I could include it in this post and then move back to defending my own arguments, and agreeing with or contradicting some of your arguments. I have waited two days but it seems you have given up on this debate. - Department of Education The department of education is probably one of the worst branches of the government to cut spending in. Basic education leads to smarter people, which make up a society in which you can rely on other people to make better decisions. Unless you are planning on solving all of tomorrows problems yourself, we will need a country where everyone gets at least a basic education. Education is the highest return investment a country can make. The better people are educated the easier it is for them to find a job and provide for themselves and not rely on government help. But it seems you also wish to get rid of this government help. - Head Start While it is true that the effectiveness of Head Start has been a matter for debate, the arguments against are that kids who participated in the program, usually end up in low income schools, which undo the benefits of the program. So instead of cutting this program and leaving poor kids to end up poorer than their parents. We should invest in kids who have even less to say about their financial state than their parents. Instead of using local property tax to fund local schools, the federal government should distribute the wealth better. This so more money ends up in low income schools, as they are chronically underfunded. Because of the current system, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. - Meals on Weels Almost half the budget of Meals on Wheels comes from gifts. The program was made to fight senior lonelyness and poverty. These people have contributed to the country most of their lives, and once we're done leaching them out, we should leave them to starve? - Section 8 This housing section funded by the government costs quite a bit of money, it has a higher return than the investment that it takes. Also, the buildings are privately owned, but without the help of the government, the private sector would not be willing to take in tenants who have an uncertain income. So in this case the private sector will definitely not fix it. You also seemed to not have read my rebuttal because I named basic security as one of the main arguments for govermnent involvement. Housing and food are considered basic security. I perhaps also did not elaborate enough on the article I posted: it concludes poor decisionmaking isn't a prerequisite for poverty, however poverty will lead to poor decisionmaking. http://www.sciencemag.org... So basically providing people with a house they can live in and providing people with food, will make them smarter people, will make them feel more responsible, and make them less dangerous (with regards to crime). This is a very nice article about crimes of desperation with a staggering conclusion; for every $ spent on measures to reduce poverty (provide housing, food, clothes,...) 6$ can be saved in costs to society (damage done, justice system). http://www.calgaryunitedway.org... What I meant by saying that basically all government programs could run better, was that there is always room for improvement and that we shouldn't stop looking for ways to make them more efficient. Instead of cutting spending from the top down, the programs themselves should be encouraged to either achieve the same goals with less, or to achieve more with the same amount of money. Working the other way around however, would lead to the programs working less efficiently. Basically I hope you will not have a hand in reforming the budget of the United States, as you would leave the poor to die out on the streets, leave the elderly to starve in their homes and generally reward rich people for being rich. Maybe a good question to ask yourself is: what do we need money for. Is money not a means to an end, a way to allow people to survive and thrive? I think making money, and having a part of that money go to making this country a better place to live in for everyone, a beautiful idea. And instead of looking at "what does it cost me", look at "how does it benefit the people of the U.S.A.". Choosing the advancement of society over personal gain is what defines us as humans. Without it, we would not have started building roads, we wouldn't have health care, education for everyone, we wouldn't have most of our technology. "Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life." - Nelson Mandela