They can't cut taxes, they are already spending 1500 billions more than they make, they need to cut SPENDING.

Also the questions you ask are the wrong ones. The question should be: is it a role mandated to the federal government by the constitution? If not then it should either be done by individuals or by the states depending on whether it is prohibited to the states by the constitution (the government causing people to find jesus is a violation of the first amendment's freedom of religion*) or not (and a particular state's constitution allowing said state's government to do that item).

Also, quite a few of those problems (like obesity) are due to government distortions (the gov pushing a food plate that is good for the campaing contributing agriculture business but shit for nutrition) so having the government stop subsidizing and meddling with a lot of things would help.

* how would you feel about the government causing people to find allah or buddah... Well, muslim or buddhist are bound to feel the same way about the government causing people to find jesus.

That's not at all the argument. Since this is obviously not a serious thread, I'm at a loss as to why people are trying to give you serious answers.

I only did it to show that there were actually serious answers available.

Why it is only moderately successful is that these countries would probably have some of the highest standards of living regardless of whether they followed this approach because they're among the most selfless and least corrupt nations in the world. The fact that it requires a series of exceptional pre-conditions to cause less harm than good is why it is a bad approach. As an analogy, just because a few people with exceptional talent can be successful without a highschool education doesn't mean that skipping/dropping-out of highschool isn't inherently a bad idea.

Only if you replace it with sales tax, make prayer compulsory in schools and ban the teaching of evolution.

(I'm not opposed to lower taxes, but the thread makes no sense, so I can't really give a serious answer).

Ok, so let's look at your comment, and extend it beyond just cutting taxes.  Is there anything the elimination of laws and regulations can't fix?  If we remove all form and semblance of government would suddenly all the problems I mention go away?  Would there eventually be no teen pregnancy, no terrorism, no crime and no objectional programming on TV?  Would all children be fed and clothed?  Would we have 0% unemployment and the road and infrastructure would take care of itself?

With absolute anarchy? No, likely not.

With very minimal government to ensure that contracts are upheld, and that no one can violate the personhood or property of another? Likely, yes.

In our current society, many bad behaviors are incentivized by government charity, regulations, and laws. This causes people to engage in bad behaviors as they do not receive the recompense for their actions.

The problem is that unless Jesus comes back to earth, we are going to have to deal with many of the unfortunate things you mentioned - teen pregnancy, drug usage, poverty, questionable TV content, unemployment and so on. But if we can remove government incentivization of activities and let morality rule the day (by proving the correlation between bad behaviors and bad results), many of these objectionable things can be mitigated.

For example, if there is a smaller safety net that the government controls, people will likely take more precautions in their life to ensure they do not go broke and have nowhere to turn to. Likewise, poverty in America is the same way: Johnson started the War on Poverty in the mid-60s, yet today our unemployment and poverty metrics are no better than they were 50 years ago, and income inequality has gone up not down. Such statistics should be a repudiation of government attempts to assuade the populace into doing, acting, feeling, believing or behaving the way government desires it to go.

Currently, more federal tax dollars are spent being transferred from one person to another via subsidies, tax credits, welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid than all other federal spending combined. Yet despite this, we are arguably worse off than we were with less and less monies being transferred from one part of society to the other.

Therefore, in my view, removing government assistance is the most desirable option. With the onus being on individuals, they can better regulate and adhere to their moral standards and concience as opposed to the body politic, which is well meaning but has a horrible track record in practical laws and amendments benefitting those in poverty.

Let me give some examples:

• We have a social security system that requires 12.4% of all dollars earned at a job be rendered unto the system. 8.4% is paid by the employee, 4.0% is paid by the company. This security net does not accrue real interest, but instead is returned at a rate of 2.32% APR which is generated by taxing the populace, as the government does not invest the money. Without this said net, every wage earner in America could earn more money at their job or have a much larger retirement due to compound interest of actual investment programs.
• Medicare payments are currently set at $7,500 USD per enrollee per year. This is the cost of the system divided by the number of people on the system at this current time. Comparatively, private insurance programs average $4,900. If such a medical safety net did not exist, the body politic would save approximately $2,600 USD per enrollee even if these people were given private plans. Better yet, if government de-regulated the system that is unbelievably broken, shoddy, and a disservice for Americans, costs per enrollee would likely plummet even further to $2,000 - $3,000 USD per person as competition would be systemic in a truly free market system.
• School costs in America's socialized system are raising above and beyond inflation, whilst educational standards have stagnated since the 1970's. We can place blame on many places - the NEA, the administration system, the way schools are districted, the parents, ect. At any rate, the monopolization of our schools has been (in my mind) an utter failure. Comparatively, metrics in private schools vastly outclass that of their public peers - despite costing a fraction per student. I could cite systems like Cornerstone in Detroit that take the same poverty-striken kids in the most urban areas, and turn them into some of the nation's most exemplary students at a cost that is much less than public schools. One could cite the national averages of private vs. public care and know that even if we were to offer vouchers to every student, we would likely save an average of $2,000 USD per student per year and likely see ACT/SAT scores improve between 15-20%.
• Finally, we could look at regulatory and tax structures in America compared to OECD nations around the world to know that our government continues to impose new standards and restrictions on private enterprise during a time when many nations are removing barriers, and freeing up businesses to compete against eachother, and ensure said countries have a decent manufacturing base as well as their service sectors. America continues to make it harder to hire, thus jobs are driven overseas, or into other states. One can examine this trend in job creation in states like Texas, North Dakota and other very business-friendly states versus those that have significant tax burdens and regulatory structures like California and Illinois. For example in the past three years, 50% of all American job creation belongs to one, and only one state. I am sure you know which state it is, and we all know that this said state has made significant strides to remove restrictions to businesses, and spur competition. Additionally, we can correlate GINI coefficients with economic freedoms in America and come to the realilization that more economic freedoms have actually yielded less disparity and not more. For example, the smallest margins in income disparity are very free states such as Vermont, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska, while the worst state is your state of New York. 

These are just a few points. For social issues, one could note that the decriminalization of all drugs in portugal, along with a substence abuse treatment plan has yielded spectacular results for hard drug users. In just 5 years, hard drug usage has dropped between 60-80% among all hard drugs. Yet again, its repudiation that greater government control over peoples lives - both economic and personal - yield positive results for the nation. That is why I believe that less government is better. I am not an anarchist, as I do strongly believe that there must be a system of mediation between two parties to discern contracts and ensure the protection of life and property. However, time and time again, we see that the most beneficial system is that of personal, not public, responsibility - the greater we take responsibility in our own lives, the better we develop and provide a better world to live in.

MrStickball, just because America has failed to implement these ideas well does not mean that the ideas themselves are failures. As I pointed out many of the countries that have higher quality of life, have high standards of education and high standards of healthcare do have wide social programs and very high taxes. It's not like communism which hasn't been implemented well anywhere.

Ah, but you assume that success of socialized programs is a repudiation if the same said countries had a free-market system for the same social services or economies. Problem is, we do not know the answer to that in said European countries. Furthermore, we assume that said systems can sustain themselves indefinitely which may or may not be the case - given the volatility in Europe, one may wonder if said levels of social services will last the next 20, 30, or 40 years.

The issue with the argument is that its impossible to show that the European system is even optimal for European societies. One could look at examples of deregulation in very socialist European countries as proofs that there may be positive results in degrulation and freer markets. For example, the Dutch have arguably the most free job market in Europe and is cited to be generally as free as the United States. The result? One of the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe. Likewise, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe comes from the most economically free country in Europe - Switzerland. Take the time to look up economic freedom on Heritage's Index to see how European countries stack up. You'll be surprised.

But can you actually demonstrate that they have a high standard of living because of these programs, or would it be fair to assume that the conditions that allow them to have a high standard of living also enabled them to implement these programs without the negative consequences that are typically associated with these programs?