Just read this thread from front to back.
DANG ... there's 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
At least I had the freedom to waste it on whatever I chose.
Printable View
Just read this thread from front to back.
DANG ... there's 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
At least I had the freedom to waste it on whatever I chose.
BO has not only eaten 8 years of sandwiches in 2 years he wants another 8 years worth for the next 2 years as well. I do not see how you continue to blame GWB for the way things are considering when BO took office we were better off in every way of measurement. It was only the last 2 years of GWB term when the Democrats won the house and Senate that things started getting worse and that was because the Democrats won the House and Senate. Then when BO got there they had all 3 levels and things got even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by HOT_WASABI_JUNKIE
Reagan started this runaway deficit train and the Bushs continued to push it down the track. Obama has made the deficit worse, out of desperation when the economy nearly went over the edge due to Republican deregulation of Wall Street. IMO he has barely had a chance to do anything but react to existing problems.
That's the way it looks from here anyway. And I am not a Democrat.
Given the shape liberal MN is in. Did all the wrong things in the state that the liberals in DC did. Then the people get all upset at the person trying to fix it because now the piper needs paid for years of bad policy. Are you aware that during BOs tenure unemployment and underemployment is over 16%? And that duringthat same period the Federal Government not only got larger but the number of people making over $100,000 a year increased dramatically? You solve the deficit by spending less not more. The percentage of taxes compared to the GNP is at the highest it's ever been and the solution is to make it higher? Thats what the liberals are saying. Of course more government control and government spending is their solution to everything from skyhigh unemployment to failing schools. A recent study actually shows the rate of turnover in Govt jobs is less than 1%. Anything less than 3% is keeping worthless employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigSwede
It strikes me as unnecessarily simplisitc, even absurd, to lay the annual budget deficits and long term national debt at the feet of either, rather than both, modern national parties and their leadership. Both parties are spend mad, just generally on different things, although they are both willing to bleed us all for the projects and line items that support their own reelection bids. Both parties also have minority voices that have long called for fiscal sanity and even been willing to make potentially dangerous (in terms of reelection) concessions to get it, although they clearly approach how to get there from different revenue and expenditure perspectives.
I think my conservative friends tend to downplay the danger that two groups of freshmen GOP House members represent: those who believe that defaulting on the national debt is actually not a bad thing, and the less crazy but unreasonable ones that will not exchange in negotiation even slight revenue increases in exchange for significant spending cuts, say a 75/25 percent split.
AND
I think my progressive and liberal friends too quickly paint the entire tea party with a crazy brush for their insistance on addressing a very real and dangerous long term fiscal solvency problem, when it is continueing with the status quo of the last couple of decades that is the true path of insanity.
As for BO himself, his economic model is pretty mainstream, and the majority of professional economists do seem to think that stimulus during recession is, if not the ideal, then at least pretty defensible as a tactic. I think the "cars for clunkers" was incredibly stupid from any perspective other than "we all like free stuff", but the majority of his budget and monetary policies have been pretty mainstream, hardly controversial at all outside of the amplified arena of partisan politics.
The future national debt problem is solvable with significant defense cuts, raising the social security retirement age by two years phased in starting a few years from now, and medicare means testing. Get the GOP to go along with the first, the Dems the last, and good luck with the middle one. But all three will be required.
Yeah! It's time for Political Buzzword Bingo! We're off to a good start but here's some phrases we're still missing:
Dick Cheney, Gitmo, Big Corporations, birth certificate, defense spending, Pelosi, 9/11, Patriot Act, bail-out, ObamaCare, Bush (now Obama) tax cuts
Mix those in with some sweeping generalizations and overall blamestorming and you've got our "national dialogue." ;puke:
I'll throw one in though that I do personally believe in. For most Democrats and a lot of other folks there is NOTHING that Barack Obama can do wrong that wasn't either completely or in large part caused by George W Bush. I wonder if those same folks would give John McCain the same pass.
I would settle for them explaining how GWB was both totally incompetant yet able to fool everybody to do everything he wanted them to. While at the same time creating Hurricane KatrinaQuote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
Downsizing the military can help to lower the deficit but will play havoc on the economy. Imagine if you will, a Government ban of the fast food industry. It would have a similar effect on the economy/unemployment.
Remember BO's plan to help the deficit by freezing the DOD Civilian pay? In approximately 10 years, it could defray approximately 2% of the deficit. Now that's affirmative action for ya.
Yah, it's a sore spot for me ... I are one.
Did any of you guys hear about Hot Wasabi Junkie having a head-on with a cop?:p
I here you Tom, and yet the majority of the realisitc defense spending roll backs involve savings from less interventionist policies, winding down Afghanistan and Iraq troop levels, and some focused acquistioin cuts. "Downsize the military" is a phased in item that would wreak havok with the economy no more than "downsize the medical care industry" and less than "not doing anything other than kicking the can down the road" until the debt is unsustainable as a percentage of GDP. Since US national defense spending accounts for about 42% of world defense spending and that we spend more than the vast majority of other countries combined, its hard for me not to see this is one of the areas that we will need to cut if we really want to get a handle on the national debt. Given that I work with DOD civilians every day, I am sympathetic to complaints about pay freezes, but if inflation is nearly non existant why shouldn't DoD pay be frozen in an era where you have a very secure job with pay levels that arguable rose during the recession and overall size of the federal civilian employee job pool also rose? 2% is not a lot, but it is a statistically significant number and a non-permanant pay index freeze could be part of a larger package.
Because whatever savings it creates are, as Tom said, minor and highly debatable. Remember that freezing pay isn't just a matter of dollars and cents; you do that long enough and your best young talent will leave the civilian sector to work for private contractors, who will charge the government significantly more for that person's knowledge and skill sets. On the other hand we spend RIDICULOUS amounts of money on pet weapons and systems projects that are years and hundreds of millions of dollars behind schedule. You want to squeeze the DoD budget in a substantial way? Make commands justify every line item of their budget and provide harsh accountability for overbudget and overschedule projects.
I'm telling you from first-hand knowledge that the potential there is MUCH better than 2%.
Only if those contractors are hiring:yesb:Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
It's a shell game. You piss off a guy at your Agency A, I hire him for a project over at Command B, when that contract is up in 6-12 months I sell him back to you for 2x his prior hourly rate. Squeezing salaries is like turning the thermostat up a few degrees; sure it will help over the long haul, but will it save you enough money NOW to stay in business? But I do agree that there is a LOT of glut in the civilian sector - problem is nobody has the balls to fire the RIGHT people, they just lay off the most recent / least tenured hires, thereby ensuring the lazier guy stays employed forever.
I promise you there is no more socialistic organization than the US government.
EDIT: Want to make it clear that I don't consider Tom to be on of the "lazier guys" who stays forever. We need more guys willing to haul bombs in their personal vehicles for free. :)
A lot of real savings in military spending could be made if the congresscritters would allow basing to align with actual needs. We spend many billions on unneeded bases to keep jobs in congressional districts. Closing some of these unneeded money pits would save money and probably reduce government payroll. Some members only like military spending if it's in their districts.
As a pretty recent military retiree currently serving as a defense contractor, and keeping an eye out for a DoD GS position, I generally agree with last three posts while still contending that freezing federal pay is pretty reasonable if you have little or no cost of living increase, 9% unemployment, a history of pay increases during the recession, and a growth in this specific job force during the same period. We ought to be looking at all areas to effectively reduce our deficit and debt, with no sacred cows left undiscussed.
All good points.
But ...
There is no goose that lays a golden egg. They need to look at a wholistic approach. Every Government spendature needs to be evaluated and scrutinized.
Freezing the pay of DOD civilians is a start & we've gotten used to that criticism (& jokes) over the years. The amount saved is minimal though and probably so insignificant that the total is within measurement error.
Remember also that the national debt is tied DIRECTLY with the standard of living. If you want the good life, not only do you have to buy it but you have to also get everyone else to buy into it as well to support the infrastructure that goes with it.
I may be wrong, but it seems like you are agreeing with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by circmand
I am NOT disagreeing with you. But you are missing my point - much of the increased spending recently occurred in an attempt to save the economy from a Great Depression-like event. Clamping down on spending was tried by the Hoover administration last time, and it did not work. People who say stimulus spending and bailouts are failure (Republican political candidates, often) because the economy is stagnant fail to allow for the possibility that things might have been much, much worse without the spending.Quote:
Are you aware that during BOs tenure unemployment and underemployment is over 16%? And that duringthat same period the Federal Government not only got larger but the number of people making over $100,000 a year increased dramatically? You solve the deficit by spending less not more. The percentage of taxes compared to the GNP is at the highest it's ever been and the solution is to make it higher? Thats what the liberals are saying.
But, even if this spending saved us from greater pain in the short term, the question becomes - will this bite us in the *** down the road? Probably. Pick your poison.
I am currently working (as a contractor) in a federal building. About half the people I see walking around strike me as marginally employable in the private sector. A superficial assessment to be sure, but it agrees with your stats.Quote:
A recent study actually shows the rate of turnover in Govt jobs is less than 1%. Anything less than 3% is keeping worthless employees.
And this is the problem. Decades of choosing the short-term fix without addressing the long term problem. It's not a matter of "picking your poison" - sometime, somewhere we HAVE to pick the short-term pain. We wait until we're almost out of (other people's) money before we address the issue, and even then all most politicians want to address is how to bridge us to the next crisis. I'm tired of Band-Aids, they need to fix the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigSwede
This is probably the greatest weakness of a democracy. Politicians are motivated by short term concerns (get re-elected), rather than the long-term good.
Not directed at anyone in particular, just stating a long held belief....
My opinion: another weakness is that people get caught up in "my team" vs "their team" and "winning." Nobody gets points for voting for the person they think is going to win instead of who they really really want to win, but some do it anyway. Hey, knock yourself out, go crazy in regards to your favorite sports team. But this is actually important and shouldn't be reduced to some goofy "us vs. them / see, I'm right" attitude. Be serious, take it seriously and spend more time listening and learning instead of trying to prove yourself right. Heck, try to find something to prove your opinion wrong and see what you learn. Always try to see things from the other side. Or walk around like Charlie Sheen telling everyone how you're "WINNING!"
Tiger Blood Rick, signing off.
(and winning!)
My solution to getting this country back on track:
1)Elect Ron Paul for President
2)Get rid of the FEDERAL RESERVE and have this country print & distribute its own money like it did for most of its existance. (You do know that the Federal Reserve isn't actually a Federal Institution...its a private banking conglomerate run by the biggest, greediest bankers out there!)
2.5)Go back to a Gold-based/backed currency, not continue with the FIAT one we have now. (do an audit of Fort Knox...you'd probably be surprised @ what is actually in there.)
3)Take 1 page out of Clinton's Presidency & strive for balanced budgets. Flush the rest of the pages down the toilet.
4)Stop going to war at the drop of a hat over every worldly problem...in short...this country needs to stop being the World Police Force.
5)Give this country some of its Pride back by sending Astronauts to Mars. The trickle-down effect alone of derived technology necessary to achieve this will work its way into the private/corporate sector and we all win with it entering our lives and businesses.
6)Stop sending jobs overseas. What happens when you kill the Golden Goose? Without decent paying jobs...who has money to buy houses, fridges, cars, motorcyles, etc..etc...etc...
7)Offer illegal aliens a chance to become US citizens the right way...go through the already existing immigration laws & processes. Once your in..you can work to achieve a better life for yourself. If you don't make the cut...your but is sent via the U.S. Postal Service back to Mexico. (This gives the Postal System a boost...okay....just kidding about this one..lol.)
And as far as running into the cop...how can you go from "They were really good about it..much better than hitting a civilian" all the way over to: "not returning his calls...he should have gotten the info the first time....this is for all the times they busted my balls about window tint..etc..etc.."
It seems to me that you should be grateful they treated you with respect & dignity and were good about it...you should give what you get in my book.
Well in the spirit of friendly discussion:
I can definately get on board with #3, #4, and your path to citizenship reasonableness in #7.
I defended Ron Paul to my more liberal friends, and against the main stream conservative during the last election, but that support was despite, not because of his gold standard fetish. I just don't think it has a real place in modern economics, but I really don't think we will resolve that issue here, so I just toss it out there as "I disagree".
As for #5, it seems to me to be distinctly in conflict with your otherwise small government, free market support.
For #6, how do you propose to do that? Have the federal government make the employment decisions of corporations subject to State approval? That problems is a symptom, not a cause.
X2:yesb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Roger VX'er
I guess it's not really breaking new, or in progress as much as been done, but it's the first I found on Google :laughing:
We don't, really. We only go when our interests are at stake. Usually oil, or terrorism. There are plenty of places where horrible genocides have taken place and we have ignored it, other than lip service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Roger VX'er
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBeast
It is slowly being taken out from under our feet because we have not appreciated it and we have not used the system at all. Although those in power are trying their best to not honor the Constitution it is our duty as voters to give them a wake up call and remind them of our foundations. It is not a perfect system nor will any system that has people involved in it, but it is still the best in the world.
If this was the case AND people actually believed it, there would be change in the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXR
p.s. I haven't got the multi quote thing down yet.