Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on February 25, 2013, 02:13:45 PM
-
Might want a stiff drink or drop a couple anti-depressants before gawking at the chart below.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-YpDG0HXDN24%2FUSnMME1woCI%2FAAAAAAAAKoU%2F341bbU8tqWE%2Fs640%2FPew.jpg&hash=05cdc151f90e6217f42d90207d1d0b47958ae9b7)
-
Free *expletive deleted*it! Free *expletive deleted*it! Free *expletive deleted*it!
-
Fast track to here:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deviantart.com%2Fdownload%2F185029719%2Fhighway_to_hell_by_paulie_svk-d325tuf.jpg&hash=7956fdc5a3fb2df154ede7ea6a889ea52408c215)
-
The survey no doubt includes members of the 47% who pay no income tax . . . including the subset that gets a piece of the $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year we spend on welfare. (Note that this figure does not include Social Security.)
-
Free *expletive deleted*! Free *expletive deleted*! Free *expletive deleted*!
"Soak the rich!" "Soak the rich!" "Soak the rich!"
-
Well, not that this is any more comforting, but, "what can't go on for ever, won't."
I really hope I can shield my children from the aftermath of when it stops, though.
-
That reminds me of a great quote I saw in an article the other day...
Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil-industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world’s highest health costs (by far), the world’s largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by age 75—and, to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades.
-
Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil-industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world’s highest health costs (by far), the world’s largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by age 75—and, to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades.
"We" will confront it when the bulk of the baby boomer generation gets itself firmly ensconced in the Senior Citizen demographic and the AARP is flush with lobbying cash. The population balloon of that demographic will be impossible to overcome in the voting booth.
Then it will be "obvious" we haven't been paying enough taxes.
The robber grannies who promised that the sweat of their grandchildren would pay for their benefits today will double-down on it and put the burden on their great-great-grandchildren.
-
Internals tell all.
-
This has always been the answer I get with talking to liberals. I've met many who want to cut govt spending or talk big about balancing the budget, but when you take them issue by issue and ask what they would cut, they can usually only agree to cut defense spending, nothing else. I figured that was always how you separate people who are truly for smaller govt. How quick are you willing to make exceptions to spending cuts? I think a lot of Republicans would fail that test also.
Is there a link to an article on this?
-
That reminds me of a great quote I saw in an article the other day...
I'd love to read that article.
-
That reminds me of a great quote I saw in an article the other day...
Eventually, the country will have to confront the deficit we have, rather than the deficit we imagine. The one we imagine is a deficit caused by waste, fraud, abuse, foreign aid, oil-industry subsidies and vague out-of-control spending. The one we have is caused by the world’s highest health costs (by far), the world’s largest military (by far), a Social Security program built when most people died by age 75—and, to pay for it all, the lowest tax rates in decades.
OK, let's raise taxes. Obama wants to -- he's already done it. And people are hurting. Our meager economic growth just reversed itself last quarter. Missed that one, huh?
We're 16 TRILLION IN DEBT. The evil rich people do NOT have the $$$$ to pay that off, even if you took everything they have.
And as for health care; The "Affordable :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Healthcare Act" AKA Obamacare is going to make it even worse.
Military costs? No no dingleberry it's ENTITLEMENTS that are driving the debt!!!!!
Someone pave the road to hell.
No point in smashing up the undercarriage en route.......
-
Someone pave the road to hell.
No point in smashing up the undercarriage en route.......
Ooooh, a shovel ready job!
-
Doesn't depress me too much, about what I expect. Its hard to pick one group out and say, "I want to cut your job."
It all has to be cut.
-
60% want more spending on 'education?'
Are you effing kidding me?
I almost think its some sort of federal law that kids can't go to a school building more than 30 years old that doesn't have a swimming pool and didn't cost less than $75 million to build. [barf]
-
Balog: The article is here (http://news.yahoo.com/why-you%E2%80%99re-to-blame-for-the-deficit--and-what-to-do-about-it-203845406.html).
TommyGunn: Defense is 20% of the budget. As anathema as the idea is to most conservatives if we expect liberals to accept cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (each also 20% of the budget) we have to be willing to put cuts in defense spending on the table. And how can you realistically cut any budget if you refuse to touch a full 20% of it?
Peripherally, I'd even accept higher taxes if it balanced the budget. The real problem now, in my opinion, is people are getting the government they want at the price they want. And we are covering the difference with deficit spending. No pain, so no move to do anything about it. If people actually had to pay for the government they are getting maybe they would be more interested in really cutting government spending than sitting there screaming "Not my sacred cow!"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png)
-
I could live with cuts in defense if it came with lots of other cut all over the spectrum. I just don't want ONLY defense cuts.
How about efficiency? When was the last time someone took a close look at Social Security and Welfare and how much money they got versus how much went out in checks to people? How much is sucked by overpaid and overstaffed administration? I bet you could knock 25% off social security and not cut benefits one bit.
-
TommyGunn: Defense is 20% of the budget. As anathema as the idea is to most conservatives if we expect liberals to accept cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (each also 20% of the budget) we have to be willing to put cuts in defense spending on the table. And how can you realistically cut any budget if you refuse to touch a full 20% of it?
Peripherally, I'd even accept higher taxes if it balanced the budget. The real problem now, in my opinion, is people are getting the government they want at the price they want. And we are covering the difference with deficit spending. No pain, so no move to do anything about it. If people actually had to pay for the government they are getting maybe they would be more interested in really cutting government spending than sitting there screaming "Not my sacred cow!"
I could accept some military cuts if they were done intelligently ... which generally precludes government action.
We're not yet in a really good position to be cutting back on defense. When the Cold War ended we thought there'd be a huge "peace dividend" and cut back, not having the imagination to consider such a thing as 9-11-2001.
We have a big problem in this country; when ever we end a war, the first thing we do is take a big meat clever to the military and it can too easily bite us in the @$$. The thought of all the armor and stuff we left rotting on Pacific Island in 1945. Somehow we didn't calculate the Korean War.
But we do know there will ALWAYS be "ANOTHER WAR."
As for higher taxes, I won't accept them BECAUSE that won't balance the budget. The people we'd tax don't have the $$$$$ to pay for the 16+ trillion dollar pricetag. Who has 16 trillion dollars?
If we could control spending, and get the economy really chugging (won't happen under Obama) eventually we could grow out of it. But I don't see that happening.
People are "getting the government they want at the price they want," in a way. The eventual price, I fear, will be frightful. We're alredy having trouble servicing the debt (it's not single cell critter, it's a conglomerate critter) and the curve is not sustainable. We're killing the value of the dollar and we are heading for an economic collapse that will kill everyone's sacred cow no matter how loud they shriek. Entitlements....medicaid/medicare.....military.....foreign aid (pittance though it is in the big scheme of things) ...it'll all get swallowed down the drain no matter the pain.
-
I don't want cuts to defense. Yes, there is a lot of waste, but simply saying "we'll just cut the waste!" is, of course, naive. "Cutting the waste" would involve cutting bureaucracy and other entrenched interest groups that few in this country have the awareness and determination to fight. (Concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs- it's always hard to fight that battle.)
However, I'll accept defense cuts because our government needs to be smaller. No, that's not right. Our COUNTRY needs our government to be smaller, our ECONOMY needs our country to be smaller, and our FUTURE needs our government to be smaller. The government has no needs. If it takes cuts across the board to get there, so be it.
As to the higher taxes, I would, in principle be willing to shoulder that burden. Unfortunately, in practice what has happened for the entirety of my lifetime is "We'll raise taxes now and cut spending over time"... and the spending never gets cut.
As a result, I'm not willing to make that stupid bargain. Cuts first. Show me the actual cuts in programs, not "planned cuts", not "cuts" that are cuts to the rate of growth, but actual cuts that have existed for 5 years- THEN I'll be willing to discuss higher taxes. Democrats' bad faith in the past gets them no faith from me today.
-
Can we cut the farm and ethanol subsidies?
-
Can we cut the farm and ethanol subsidies?
Why do you hate farmers? ;)
OTOH, not burning corn in our cars in a overall BTU-losing proposition might leave more behind to feed cattle and hogs and divert the varieties of corn grown for ethanol into varieties of corn consumed by humans.
Oh, and what makattak wrote.
-
OTOH, not burning corn in our cars in a overall BTU-losing proposition might leave more behind to feed cattle and hogs and divert the varieties of corn grown for ethanol into varieties of corn consumed by humans.
Or even <GASP!> grow something other than corn!!!
-
Or even <GASP!> grow something other than corn!!!
Cheap(er) barley malt would certainly serve as a partial coping mechanism in approaching the overall problem.
-
We don't need 10 active naval carrier groups consisting of 10 supercarriers 3x larger than anything the rest of the world has and 9 Tarawa/Wasp class on par with the most complicated the rest of the world has, operating over the entire world.
Sorry. We don't.
We have more carrier groups than all the other countries in the world combined.
We're NEVER going to go to war with France, Italy, England, Brazil, Thailand or India. At least any time in the next 50+ years, which is the remaining service life on any of our given 11 aircraft carriers out there. Those 4 countries all operate aircraft carriers of their own. We're certainly not against ALL of them AND Russia and China, at the same time. And if we do... we're probably the bad guys.
The excuse I always hear about carrier groups is we need them, one for each of the following theaters of operation:
-north Pacific
-south Pacific
-north Atlantic
-south Atlantic
-Indian Ocean
-Mediterranean
-Persian Gulf / Straight of Hormuz
-and a few extra for whatever hotspots might need attention.
Let the Brits/French/Italians/Indians/Brazilians/Thai patrol these areas without an accompanying Nimitz or Wasp class carrier.
Let's cut it back to 7 supercarriers and 5 wasp class ships.
-
What we should be doing is combining and eliminating redundant government functions first. Then eliminate non-essential government agencies, condensing it down to a manageable number of agencies. Then cut their scope.
If you try to trim each department, you get the Washington Monument Defense. Tell Interior or Park Service to cut, and they'll cut their highest visibility and most essential services FIRST instead of LAST. "You have fifty billion tiny 'parks' that cumulatively cost a lot and serve no purpose. - You're right, so we'll shut down the Washington Monument, so idiots will clammer for you to halt any budget cuts!"
-
If you try to trim each department, you get the Washington Monument Defense. Tell Interior or Park Service to cut, and they'll cut their highest visibility and most essential services FIRST instead of LAST. "You have fifty billion tiny 'parks' that cumulatively cost a lot and serve no purpose. - You're right, so we'll shut down the Washington Monument, so idiots will clammer for you to halt any budget cuts!"
Speaking as someone who has worked for both the NPS and state park systems, the NPS should not even exist. My state, for example, runs 47 state parks. We could EASILY absorb the 7 national parks that are within this state into our system and run them, and do it far better. We run our park service with MUCH higher efficiencey than the NPS. Since most of the NPS funding comes from taxpayer dollars they don't care about wisely spending budgetary money. My state's park system gets as much as possible of it's funding from revenue generation and we are at something like 80% self sufficiency at this point. Completely different attitudes towards running parks than the NPS and it works better.
-
Speaking as someone who has worked for both the NPS and state park systems, the NPS should not even exist. My state, for example, runs 47 state parks. We could EASILY absorb the 7 national parks that are within this state into our system and run them, and do it far better. We run our park service with MUCH higher efficiencey than the NPS. Since most of the NPS funding comes from taxpayer dollars they don't care about wisely spending budgetary money. My state's park system gets as much as possible of it's funding from revenue generation and we are at something like 80% self sufficiency at this point. Completely different attitudes towards running parks than the NPS and it works better.
Plus it'd be nice not to hear of "NPS tactical teams", which is a serious WTF. Our game wardens are armed, but I've yet to hear of them doing helicopter commando raids. Aside issue is that our game wardens are claiming, and the courts have backed them up, that they have a legal right to trespass on nearly any private property that is not walled off.
-
Spending on "defense" isn't really the problem.
Spending on offense is a problem. =(
-
Cuts have to take place even if taxes are increased. I would like to see the cuts first. I also think that every department should be subject to actual budget cuts this year and then again next year and again the year after.
I would direct agency heads to make recommendations to cut 10% off their budget immediately and where precisely they would make the cuts based on their experience. I would also tell them if they don't recommend cuts, they are subject to termination.
I would also look at cutting salaries somewhat. What are these people going to do about it? They will continue to work and hope that things get better in the future just like many of the rest of us.
-
The time has come to start taking the government off of baseline budgeting assumptions.
Freeze the Federal budget first.
Then start the process of using real world budgeting practices.
-
The time has come to start taking the government off of baseline budgeting assumptions.
Freeze the Federal budget first.
Then start the process of using real world budgeting practices.
Yes
And stop the practice of "spend it or lose it"
I resist this as much as I can, and have cancelled purchases on many occasions.
-
I would also look at cutting salaries somewhat. What are these people going to do about it? They will continue to work and hope that things get better in the future just like many of the rest of us.
At some point we'll look for other jobs or do other things. And we will take with us years of technical expertise not easily regained. Just like the rest of you. Except that the military will be less mission capable for it.
Don't get me wrong, my employer is running out of money and needs to make cuts. I understand that. Hell since I'm the one getting furloughed (probably) next month i probably have a better understanding then most. But try to remember some of your money actually pays for things and people that you actually want.
and stop the practice of "spend it or lose it"
As a purcasing officer that spends more then $200k of your money per annum..... wurd.
-
Cuts have to take place even if taxes are increased. I would like to see the cuts first. I also think that every department should be subject to actual budget cuts this year and then again next year and again the year after.
I would direct agency heads to make recommendations to cut 10% off their budget immediately and where precisely they would make the cuts based on their experience. I would also tell them if they don't recommend cuts, they are subject to termination.
I would also look at cutting salaries somewhat. What are these people going to do about it? They will continue to work and hope that things get better in the future just like many of the rest of us.
First, just tell them all to cut 10% exclusively off administration, middle management and up. That number should likely be 25%.
-
There will be some pain regardless. It has to happen or the government is going to fail. Try working in private industry. The cuts would have happened years ago in private industry. Years back, when I lost my job working for a company contracted with a Federal agency, I was at first indignant and felt I was worth what I was paid. I passed up jobs paying 30% less that were offered even before I lost my government supported job. I was looking for a higher paying job and believed at that time that I was well worth it. Reality sets in when you burn through all your savings trying to maintain and finally you accept the job at a 30% reduction in pay and believe you're doing okay. At that point, you're "fighting" to get the job at a 30% reduction because there are people willing to do it for less. Tis the way it works.
The end result is I burnt through all of my savings. I had nothing to fall back on. The savings could not be replenished from the new job salary. Time goes on and something else happens... over time you prove yourself at the new job and eventually are again one of the guys making the highest salaries in the company and you get cut again to save money.... but the new job salary only generally increased at about the inflation rate... so you never recover and you're dead meat when the next cut happens.
All this happens as you age as well and eventually the age factor kicks in and you are not even considered for a new job because there are people half your age willing to work for what they consider is a good salary in private industry. Few companies are going to hire a new employee for any significant position when they have less than 10 years of effective employment life left... they go with the younger person just about every time unless you have special talents. This is life.
-
Instead of arguing about spending more or spending less, I'd rather see us argue about spending wisely.....
-
I would be happy if they froze spending at current levels and just adjusted SS at the published inflation rate they use to lie to us!
Congress would have to have oversight on where the cuts take place, no saving bureaucratic positions on the back of cutting services.
-
Instead of arguing about spending more or spending less, I'd rather see us argue about spending wisely.....
People (and govts) tend to spend more wisely when they have less to spend.