Sequestration
Tags:
- Politics
- American
Last response: in News & Leisure
Thoughts on this?
Some people won't see the effects of this. Others will. Forcing a 20% cut across the board (Obama's choice) instead of agreeing on a small reduction of spending. The political process has nearly completely failed. The American people are not being left with any options. There will be two sides to this. One side of Americans will say it isn't a big deal and they'll work it out. The other side will be affected and upset. Then one day, both sides will unexpectedly truly demand change.
Some people won't see the effects of this. Others will. Forcing a 20% cut across the board (Obama's choice) instead of agreeing on a small reduction of spending. The political process has nearly completely failed. The American people are not being left with any options. There will be two sides to this. One side of Americans will say it isn't a big deal and they'll work it out. The other side will be affected and upset. Then one day, both sides will unexpectedly truly demand change.
More about : sequestration
johnsonma
March 1, 2013 2:31:28 PM
It was meant as a backdrop to get compromise. Unfortunately it failed and has now taken effect, although I believe it was never really meant to. Should be interesting and disconcerting to see what happens.
Too bad you guys chased off gamer, his input from the defense industry side of things would be interesting.
Too bad you guys chased off gamer, his input from the defense industry side of things would be interesting.
sturm
March 1, 2013 4:02:29 PM
It's all political BS. This kind of crap just goes to show the Obama and the Dems will NEVER be serious about controlling spending or making any kind of cuts. If $85 Billion is going to cause this much havoc as Obama says, then there is no way in hell bigger cuts will ever go through. What makes me sick is that Obama, and other POTUS's, have no problem spending 100s of billions on BS spending, but yet wont cut 6 days worth of government spending.
The U.S. is in for a WORLD of hurt in the near future. I hate to see my country go to the shitter, but that is exactly where it's going.
The U.S. is in for a WORLD of hurt in the near future. I hate to see my country go to the shitter, but that is exactly where it's going.
Related resources
- Sequestration 2013 - Forum
chunkymonster
March 1, 2013 4:46:08 PM
The whole thing is a bunch of smoke and mirrors and the Democrats and President are running around claiming that children and elderly will die in the streets as a result of these cuts.
The fact is the United States will spend more in 2013 than it did in 2012. In 2012, the government requested $2.627 Trillion and actually spent $3.796 Trillion having a budget deficit of $1.327 Trillion. For 2013, the government requested $2.902 Trillion with an estimated total expenditures of $3.803 Trillion, that still leaves a deficit of $901 Billion.
That's TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS! That's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
Let's not even get into the absurdity that the cuts are based on the estimated spending (money they think they will spend) over the next 10 years!
Let's put this into perspective. January of 2013, the american people saw their Social Security taxes raised from 4.2% to 6.2% as a result of the tax holiday ending. That equated to less take home pay and less money being dumped into the consumer economy. This increase hurt the middle class the hardest and it was the middle class who were sold a bill of goods about "doing their fair share" and "having skin in the game". That was a REAL tax increase, a REAL loss of take home pay and NOT this fake reduction of what they think they may spend over the next 10 years! The increase the tax payers took in the behind is nothing compared to a pretend reduction in government spending.
I am happy House Republicans seem to be calling Obama's sequester bluff; providing they don't reach some short term BS magic solution during today's meeting. As people wake up over the next few weeks and realize that this sequester has little to no impact on their daily lives, they will further realize that the government could stand to cut another $1.2 trillion over 10 years from the bloated sack of crap that is this government.
It seems to me that Obama and the Democrat lies, demagoguery, and class warfare has all come full circle. It is now time for Obama and the Democrats to put their big-boy-pants on and take this sequester right on the chin.
I am not gloating, I am just sick and tired of hearing from liberals, progressives, and the President that the friggin' world is coming to end because they won't have enough money to spend. I HAVEN"T HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO SPEND MY ENTIRE WORKING LIFE! It's time these sacks of crap to eat crow and live within their means like the rest of the american people!
This is a free and public forum. He has choosen to no longer participate. No one did anything to him.
The fact is the United States will spend more in 2013 than it did in 2012. In 2012, the government requested $2.627 Trillion and actually spent $3.796 Trillion having a budget deficit of $1.327 Trillion. For 2013, the government requested $2.902 Trillion with an estimated total expenditures of $3.803 Trillion, that still leaves a deficit of $901 Billion.
That's TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS! That's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
Let's not even get into the absurdity that the cuts are based on the estimated spending (money they think they will spend) over the next 10 years!
Let's put this into perspective. January of 2013, the american people saw their Social Security taxes raised from 4.2% to 6.2% as a result of the tax holiday ending. That equated to less take home pay and less money being dumped into the consumer economy. This increase hurt the middle class the hardest and it was the middle class who were sold a bill of goods about "doing their fair share" and "having skin in the game". That was a REAL tax increase, a REAL loss of take home pay and NOT this fake reduction of what they think they may spend over the next 10 years! The increase the tax payers took in the behind is nothing compared to a pretend reduction in government spending.
I am happy House Republicans seem to be calling Obama's sequester bluff; providing they don't reach some short term BS magic solution during today's meeting. As people wake up over the next few weeks and realize that this sequester has little to no impact on their daily lives, they will further realize that the government could stand to cut another $1.2 trillion over 10 years from the bloated sack of crap that is this government.
It seems to me that Obama and the Democrat lies, demagoguery, and class warfare has all come full circle. It is now time for Obama and the Democrats to put their big-boy-pants on and take this sequester right on the chin.
I am not gloating, I am just sick and tired of hearing from liberals, progressives, and the President that the friggin' world is coming to end because they won't have enough money to spend. I HAVEN"T HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO SPEND MY ENTIRE WORKING LIFE! It's time these sacks of crap to eat crow and live within their means like the rest of the american people!
johnsonma said:
Too bad you guys chased off gamer, his input from the defense industry side of things would be interesting.
musical marv
March 2, 2013 12:34:21 AM
riser said:
Thoughts on this?Some people won't see the effects of this. Others will. Forcing a 20% cut across the board (Obama's choice) instead of agreeing on a small reduction of spending. The political process has nearly completely failed. The American people are not being left with any options. There will be two sides to this. One side of Americans will say it isn't a big deal and they'll work it out. The other side will be affected and upset. Then one day, both sides will unexpectedly truly demand change.
Worst case it is a win-win for the left side. I was reading an article and it doesn't benefit the left to let people realize the 2% cuts can happen. Then people would realize we could shrink government and make it more efficient.
How to avoid that? Make it 20% across the board. Since we don't have a budget (Congress failings) we can't readily discriminate budget priorities. So we cut across the board 20%.
Realize this is a game the left is mastering.
When you're short on money, you budget and prioritize, right? Congress doesn't have a budget; These cuts are not being prioritized. This is a self constructed bad situation being used to spend more and create peaceful slavery.
How to avoid that? Make it 20% across the board. Since we don't have a budget (Congress failings) we can't readily discriminate budget priorities. So we cut across the board 20%.
Realize this is a game the left is mastering.
When you're short on money, you budget and prioritize, right? Congress doesn't have a budget; These cuts are not being prioritized. This is a self constructed bad situation being used to spend more and create peaceful slavery.
musical marv
March 3, 2013 12:36:53 AM
jsc said:
Department of Education budget for 2013 is to be about $70 billion.Kill DoEd. DoEd has had over 30 years to try to improve public education. They have been singularly unsuccessful.
Killing DoEd amounts to about 85% of the sequestered $85 billion.
Both sides have valid points. They really just need to compromise, and do what's best for the country. There shouldn't be loopholes for these huge companies making billions of dollars in profits, and then skating during tax time. If anything, they should be taxed more. They don't make the country run, the middle class does. The middle class seems to be the ones taking it on the chin over and over, as we did again recently.
There also needs to be spending cuts. We all know that the government is blowing craploads of money in pointless areas. Countries like Pakistan and North Korea should never see a penny of aide from the US.
There also needs to be spending cuts. We all know that the government is blowing craploads of money in pointless areas. Countries like Pakistan and North Korea should never see a penny of aide from the US.
Define the loophole first, its not a bad thing always, most the time its not.
Loopholes drive a certain direction in markets, both investments and startups .
They also allow for things business wouldnt normally go into, which is what one side wants anyways, government investment into certain aspects of our economy.
Now, the businesses that get many loopholes with great return wont have the investments placed in them any longer, and this will weaken them, whether its against local or international businesses as well.
Our leaders have to actually know what theyre doing, and not vote for it now, and find out what its all about later, weve already seen the higher costs of such folly
Loopholes drive a certain direction in markets, both investments and startups .
They also allow for things business wouldnt normally go into, which is what one side wants anyways, government investment into certain aspects of our economy.
Now, the businesses that get many loopholes with great return wont have the investments placed in them any longer, and this will weaken them, whether its against local or international businesses as well.
Our leaders have to actually know what theyre doing, and not vote for it now, and find out what its all about later, weve already seen the higher costs of such folly
Here's a few.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/25/8-ridi...
The big oil companies get too many tax breaks to list.
Some of the largest companies in the US, get breaks by not claiming earnings, by keeping the profits on their foreign books. They just never claim it here, so they don't have to pay the taxes here.
Not to mention, those companies can get breaks for moving expenses. That includes moving people and equipment out of the country. They get tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country.
That's a small example of some of the bs loopholes that big companies get. It's one reason why the job market is shrinking in the US, and the middle class is taking a beating.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/25/8-ridi...
The big oil companies get too many tax breaks to list.
Some of the largest companies in the US, get breaks by not claiming earnings, by keeping the profits on their foreign books. They just never claim it here, so they don't have to pay the taxes here.
Not to mention, those companies can get breaks for moving expenses. That includes moving people and equipment out of the country. They get tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country.
That's a small example of some of the bs loopholes that big companies get. It's one reason why the job market is shrinking in the US, and the middle class is taking a beating.
Yep, and then we also have to find out why those loopholes were created in the first place.
Was a good at the time?
Is it now just a hindrance to our tax system?
Theres tons of policies that need to be struck off the list as well, some for shear redundancy, others because like above, theyve outlived their usefulness.
Do the oil companies get kickbacks to keep them from selling overseas?
Just a hypothetical, but a possibility as to why these loopholes exist for them, as today, thats a good idea possibly, since selling oil overseas benefits the oil company moreso than us possibly.
I can understand their hesitancy to do some of these things, but its what weve elected them to do
Was a good at the time?
Is it now just a hindrance to our tax system?
Theres tons of policies that need to be struck off the list as well, some for shear redundancy, others because like above, theyve outlived their usefulness.
Do the oil companies get kickbacks to keep them from selling overseas?
Just a hypothetical, but a possibility as to why these loopholes exist for them, as today, thats a good idea possibly, since selling oil overseas benefits the oil company moreso than us possibly.
I can understand their hesitancy to do some of these things, but its what weve elected them to do
I'm finding the tax argument old.
We don't have a major tax issue. We have a major spending issue. Taxes can be reformed, yes, spending must be revamped.
My very liberal friend lives in Michigan. He hates the new governor. The new gov balanced the budget, created a small surplus, and is now working on fixing Detriot. He's doing a good job, making tough decisions and didn't raise the tax rate.
My friend is pissed because instead of getting back $2500 from tax credits and all, he only got back $400. I pointed to all facebook posts about raising taxes... and laughed at him about it. The problem is fixed, he's upset he had to pay more, but he got exactly what he wanted.
Michigan cut a lot of spending too. They did it right. It hurt, but it was a one time deal. He was banking on getting money back because of the tax credits for owning a home and other things. Well, Michigan closed those 'loopholes.'
Reality is no one is going to be happy when this actually does get fixed. Bite the bullet and get it over with.
We don't have a major tax issue. We have a major spending issue. Taxes can be reformed, yes, spending must be revamped.
My very liberal friend lives in Michigan. He hates the new governor. The new gov balanced the budget, created a small surplus, and is now working on fixing Detriot. He's doing a good job, making tough decisions and didn't raise the tax rate.
My friend is pissed because instead of getting back $2500 from tax credits and all, he only got back $400. I pointed to all facebook posts about raising taxes... and laughed at him about it. The problem is fixed, he's upset he had to pay more, but he got exactly what he wanted.
Michigan cut a lot of spending too. They did it right. It hurt, but it was a one time deal. He was banking on getting money back because of the tax credits for owning a home and other things. Well, Michigan closed those 'loopholes.'
Reality is no one is going to be happy when this actually does get fixed. Bite the bullet and get it over with.
johnsonma
March 4, 2013 4:15:22 PM
Cutting spending for a state is very different than for the Government as a whole. Look at the how the spending cuts are working out for other developed economies. Spending cuts by themselves will not fix anything. There has to be some sort of driving factor towards growth or it will become a self sustaining cycle of downward progression.
musical marv
March 5, 2013 12:48:59 AM
aford10 said:
Here's a few.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/25/8-ridi...
The big oil companies get too many tax breaks to list.
Some of the largest companies in the US, get breaks by not claiming earnings, by keeping the profits on their foreign books. They just never claim it here, so they don't have to pay the taxes here.
Not to mention, those companies can get breaks for moving expenses. That includes moving people and equipment out of the country. They get tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country.
That's a small example of some of the bs loopholes that big companies get. It's one reason why the job market is shrinking in the US, and the middle class is taking a beating.
chunkymonster
March 5, 2013 3:12:00 PM
I wonder how much money could be saved over 10 years if Congress were to eliminate or reduce the amount of perks from their so called "public service".
You Only Wish You Could Live Like a Congressional Fat Cat
To summarize...remember, the below list is paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS!
- Free company car
- Free gas
- Free parking (even at airports)
- Free flights almost anywhere in the world
- Per diem travel allowance... up to $3,000 a trip
- A month’s paid vacation
- 3-day work-weeks
- Free membership to a top-flight gym
- Pension plan and 401K plan
- Full retirement benefits (including up to 44% of their six figure salaries) at age 62
- Free top of the line health insurance with 10 plans to choose from
- Fully covered – even with pre-existing condition
You Only Wish You Could Live Like a Congressional Fat Cat
To summarize...remember, the below list is paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS!
Quote:
- $174,000 salary- Free company car
- Free gas
- Free parking (even at airports)
- Free flights almost anywhere in the world
- Per diem travel allowance... up to $3,000 a trip
- A month’s paid vacation
- 3-day work-weeks
- Free membership to a top-flight gym
- Pension plan and 401K plan
- Full retirement benefits (including up to 44% of their six figure salaries) at age 62
- Free top of the line health insurance with 10 plans to choose from
- Fully covered – even with pre-existing condition
wanamingo
March 5, 2013 4:20:44 PM
Most congressman dont think they make too much, and many also have side jobs.
Their justification for the pay is the same justification for CEO bonuses at failing companies, you need the money to simply attract the right person, and keep them.
I think that is retarded. Cut their pay by a percentage, if they p|ss and moan then remove paid vacation days to compensate for their loss in revenue. It is a crazy idea to have them in charge of their own pay.....
Their justification for the pay is the same justification for CEO bonuses at failing companies, you need the money to simply attract the right person, and keep them.
I think that is retarded. Cut their pay by a percentage, if they p|ss and moan then remove paid vacation days to compensate for their loss in revenue. It is a crazy idea to have them in charge of their own pay.....
musical marv
March 6, 2013 12:53:16 AM
aford10 said:
Yep, that's a pretty good place to start cutting, because that's ridiculous. If they didn't get free gas, maybe they'd crack down more on the oil companies. How do you need a month of vacation, when you work 3 days a week, and accomplish nothing anyway?
Heres ma symptom
How many times have they raised their salaries?
What is their supposed reasoning?
To get top flight people in.
I have a better incentive, instead of paying so well, perking everythin everywhere and retiring early as incentives, how about a good long freeze, and make the incentive to just to be able to represent us, this country, and have voice and capability to heal its ailments
How many times have they raised their salaries?
What is their supposed reasoning?
To get top flight people in.
I have a better incentive, instead of paying so well, perking everythin everywhere and retiring early as incentives, how about a good long freeze, and make the incentive to just to be able to represent us, this country, and have voice and capability to heal its ailments
musical marv
March 9, 2013 12:47:20 AM
chunkymonster
March 14, 2013 5:49:32 AM
COLGeek said:
Both sides have failed to allow this to happen. I have 3000 hard working Americans (who work for DoD, they vote, AND they pay taxes) who are going to take a 20% pay cut if the furloughs occur. What would you guys say to them? I would say that they are the direct victims of a corrupt Congress and the victim of an ideologue for a President. They are the very people who should be slamming their Congressional Representatives to quit playing games with giving Egypt Billions in foreign aid rather than using that money to ensure furloughs do not occur. They are the very people who should be up in arms about the Congress giving themselves raises during the sequester. Given their livelihood directly relies on government funding, they should form their own PAC to lobby the Legislature to spend the money in a way that favors them; play the game rather than fight the system.
Let there be no doubt, my civilians have (and continue to) communicated with their representatives (I have folks in 23 States). I certainly don't see a government employee PAC as anything useful (nor legal for that matter), but there are multiple Unions that represent government employees across the spectrum and they have been involved as well (and will remain so).
BTW, it took those on the Left, the Right, and in the Middle to make this mess. And it has been building for many years. Foreign Aid is but a drop in the bucket and has little impact of the immensity of the issues we face.
What is needed is for our elected officials to work together and come up with a solution vice remaining fully entrenched in their polarized corners. Both the Left and the Right are going to have to compromise.
BTW, it took those on the Left, the Right, and in the Middle to make this mess. And it has been building for many years. Foreign Aid is but a drop in the bucket and has little impact of the immensity of the issues we face.
What is needed is for our elected officials to work together and come up with a solution vice remaining fully entrenched in their polarized corners. Both the Left and the Right are going to have to compromise.
Im still waiting for a plan, a specific one, not just ideas with vague areas talked about, with possible ways to reach an end, one that goes against what this country is, who we are, what we do, how we make our living, such as doctors in Obamas vagueness.
No, theres going to have to be some hard calls, and taxing the rich wont do it, raising the worlds highest corporate tax higher wont do it, because, we happen to still live in much wealth, and thaqt wealth is held by the middle class, and the ones who want to tax our way out of this know this, so therefor, the blame is on anyone who says we can and wont cut.
Taxes have already been raised, its time for cuts, and we can take some time doing this, as a thousand tiny cuts will kill you as surely as 1 or 2 large ones will, the corruption, mismanagement, things that we shouldn't be spending on etc should go first, no matter how hard it is to make them better, or eliminating them, but tho is often talked about little is done about it.
If something small is done, someone spikes the football, and yet its almost as bad as ever, as Obama has claimed as much, yet the records/facts/reality shows it hasn't done much against the corruption we face.
By demanding more of its citizens to do a better job than they do, all the while making the citizen shoulder all the work proves its time to quit spiking the football, do their jobs, and get us rerighted here
No, theres going to have to be some hard calls, and taxing the rich wont do it, raising the worlds highest corporate tax higher wont do it, because, we happen to still live in much wealth, and thaqt wealth is held by the middle class, and the ones who want to tax our way out of this know this, so therefor, the blame is on anyone who says we can and wont cut.
Taxes have already been raised, its time for cuts, and we can take some time doing this, as a thousand tiny cuts will kill you as surely as 1 or 2 large ones will, the corruption, mismanagement, things that we shouldn't be spending on etc should go first, no matter how hard it is to make them better, or eliminating them, but tho is often talked about little is done about it.
If something small is done, someone spikes the football, and yet its almost as bad as ever, as Obama has claimed as much, yet the records/facts/reality shows it hasn't done much against the corruption we face.
By demanding more of its citizens to do a better job than they do, all the while making the citizen shoulder all the work proves its time to quit spiking the football, do their jobs, and get us rerighted here
COLGeek said:
Both sides have failed to allow this to happen. I have 3000 hard working Americans (who work for DoD, they vote, AND they pay taxes) who are going to take a 20% pay cut if the furloughs occur. What would you guys say to them? Time to find a new job. This is why the US Gov't is unable to retain talent. This is purely being done to get people to vote a certain way by impacting the people, not the process or excessive spending issues.
wanamingo said:
Most congressman dont think they make too much, and many also have side jobs.Their side jobs usually make them a lot more money than their position in Congress. The somewhat recent and notably poorly-publicized issue of insider trading in Congress bears that one out, as well as how much in income taxes many of them are not paying. High-ranking government officials are above the law since they make the law, period. Their buddies who are doing the same thing are NOT going to bust them over it. They also have huge conflicts of interest that nobody does anything about. How about subjecting them to the same restrictions that they subjected people in my industry (healthcare) to? You can't own your own business, you can't be paid for a lot of what you actually do (thank you Pete Stark), and if a rep gives you anything worth more than $10.00 it's illegal. Every single day you are alive since you were done with your schooling must be accounted for. Every single thing you do at work must be recorded in a very specific way in a government-mandated computer database program. Oh, and your license can get permanently yanked if you are found to be behind in federal taxes.
Their justification for the pay is the same justification for CEO bonuses at failing companies, you need the money to simply attract the right person, and keep them. said:
Their justification for the pay is the same justification for CEO bonuses at failing companies, you need the money to simply attract the right person, and keep them.But then they conveniently forget that when they de facto took over the healthcare industry. The government keeps on yammering on how we need more internal medicine docs, family docs, and pediatricians but is completely oblivious to the point that the reason there is a shortage is that most of those docs see a lot of Medicare and Medicaid patients at a significant loss to the practice and to their paychecks. It's awfully darned hard to get people to go into those specialties rather than well-reimbursed specialties like dermatology and plastic surgery- or to even go into the field at all. For example, Obama's dog walker makes as much as some docs do but didn't have to take on $200k+ in debt, waste 8 years of their life with their nose to a giant grindstone 24/7 in school, be beat up for 80+ hours/week for 3+ years in residency, and isn't liable to be ruined by a lawsuit by some malcontent who wants a lottery payout. I think many of the primary care docs who I work with would much rather have been the dog walker.
Quote:
I think that is retarded. Cut their pay by a percentage, if they p|ss and moan then remove paid vacation days to compensate for their loss in revenue. It is a crazy idea to have them in charge of their own pay.....I say cutting their power would be far more effective than anything. Like I said they get most of their money from graft on the side related to the fact they have so much power. Actually following the Constitution, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments, would be a lovely place to start. After that we can slash their pay and benefits to that of the median in the U.S. I'd also tear down all of the palatial government buildings and replace them with prefab metal buildings and drab orange-brick 1960s institutional office buildings like many of us work in. They don't need to get a big head because they work in some goddamn ornate Greek palace.
riser said:
Congress is nothing more than a bunch of millionaires making decisions on how to get more money from non-millionaires.They are a bunch of people with a lot of power looking to grow their power and to prevent others from obtaining power and from lessening their power. The money simply follows the power.
riser said:
COLGeek said:
Both sides have failed to allow this to happen. I have 3000 hard working Americans (who work for DoD, they vote, AND they pay taxes) who are going to take a 20% pay cut if the furloughs occur. What would you guys say to them? Time to find a new job. This is why the US Gov't is unable to retain talent. This is purely being done to get people to vote a certain way by impacting the people, not the process or excessive spending issues.
Which way do you think my 3000, Republican, Democratic, and Independent, voters are going to vote?
musical marv
March 16, 2013 6:19:35 PM
I don't know all the contingencies regarding why they get those tax breaks, it sounds good, like not giving Israel money, many people hate the Israelis, have heard nothing but bad about them etc.
Im after the truth, the whys and why nots, weigh the situations, make determined results off of facts.
I understand why the prez gave monies to those energy outfits, which includes some cronyism, but there has to be insight and not go in blindly, which in this case, lending those companies gave us nothing, only cost us money, and made those cronies even richer.
States go after businesses as well with tax breaks all the time, except maybe California, where the liberalism has reached rare form.
The purpose for those tax breaks are to get people hired, put to work in those states, not what the prez had in mind here.
Then, it comes down to actually knowing if you have a potential winner here, and so far, the prez doesn't have a clue.
I learned an interesting bit of info from Mark Cuban, who does the show called sharktank.
Its a show where several billionaires listen to potential entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas or already running businesses looking to expand.
Cuban said he was over 70% on the money, yes 70%
Look at the BO admins attempts, its woeful comparatively, so going after oil companies, of which I know not the reasons for those tax breaks, yet knowing the score with the current admins ineptness, their perpetual inability to understand business in general, the cronyism shown etc etc, its something that should stop.
People didn't like the banks being lent to either, but at least there the people retained their monies, and yes screw the bankers, but save the folks, so it was a wash.
All the monies that were to be spent on infrastructure were never spent, not yet even today, as last Id heard only one third ever made it that far, and a lot of it was diverted to protect the unions, tho this pictures get purposely muddied by both sides here, but the one thing we do know is, that infrastructure never got what it was sold on, and still needs it.
This is how our government spends our money, they don't deserve to have their hands on it.
To ask for more is folly until this too stops, but its only complained about.
One thing the DHHS has suggested is a wise move, for which Ive given the prez some credit for, yet he spiked the football for doing it, yet isn't really his doing, is, the DHHS is asking the states, no not the feds, the states to create a fraud outfir regarding medicare etc.
Its totally unfunded by the feds and has to be a state run, supported thing.
Now, my only worry is this, as in my state, its up for vote, and I hope it passes, and here many dems, the local kind anyways, are much more fiscally conservative than what youll find most other places, and they too support this, as of course the republicans do, so hopefully itll pass, but, if it does, and other states take this on as well, as soon as the savings show such actions more than pay for themselves, is that after success the feds will then come in and mandate all states to do so, and we will see a loss in efficiency as well as higher costs to do the same thing with less results, as the federal government is greedy.
The closing of the WH is but one example of what out government thinks of us when we know theres plenty of room to hide much of the lowering of spending, which really isn't a lowering, just a less higher amount of spending to begin with
Im after the truth, the whys and why nots, weigh the situations, make determined results off of facts.
I understand why the prez gave monies to those energy outfits, which includes some cronyism, but there has to be insight and not go in blindly, which in this case, lending those companies gave us nothing, only cost us money, and made those cronies even richer.
States go after businesses as well with tax breaks all the time, except maybe California, where the liberalism has reached rare form.
The purpose for those tax breaks are to get people hired, put to work in those states, not what the prez had in mind here.
Then, it comes down to actually knowing if you have a potential winner here, and so far, the prez doesn't have a clue.
I learned an interesting bit of info from Mark Cuban, who does the show called sharktank.
Its a show where several billionaires listen to potential entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas or already running businesses looking to expand.
Cuban said he was over 70% on the money, yes 70%
Look at the BO admins attempts, its woeful comparatively, so going after oil companies, of which I know not the reasons for those tax breaks, yet knowing the score with the current admins ineptness, their perpetual inability to understand business in general, the cronyism shown etc etc, its something that should stop.
People didn't like the banks being lent to either, but at least there the people retained their monies, and yes screw the bankers, but save the folks, so it was a wash.
All the monies that were to be spent on infrastructure were never spent, not yet even today, as last Id heard only one third ever made it that far, and a lot of it was diverted to protect the unions, tho this pictures get purposely muddied by both sides here, but the one thing we do know is, that infrastructure never got what it was sold on, and still needs it.
This is how our government spends our money, they don't deserve to have their hands on it.
To ask for more is folly until this too stops, but its only complained about.
One thing the DHHS has suggested is a wise move, for which Ive given the prez some credit for, yet he spiked the football for doing it, yet isn't really his doing, is, the DHHS is asking the states, no not the feds, the states to create a fraud outfir regarding medicare etc.
Its totally unfunded by the feds and has to be a state run, supported thing.
Now, my only worry is this, as in my state, its up for vote, and I hope it passes, and here many dems, the local kind anyways, are much more fiscally conservative than what youll find most other places, and they too support this, as of course the republicans do, so hopefully itll pass, but, if it does, and other states take this on as well, as soon as the savings show such actions more than pay for themselves, is that after success the feds will then come in and mandate all states to do so, and we will see a loss in efficiency as well as higher costs to do the same thing with less results, as the federal government is greedy.
The closing of the WH is but one example of what out government thinks of us when we know theres plenty of room to hide much of the lowering of spending, which really isn't a lowering, just a less higher amount of spending to begin with
musical marv
March 17, 2013 8:05:42 PM
JAYDEEJOHN said:
I don't know all the contingencies regarding why they get those tax breaks, it sounds good, like not giving Israel money, many people hate the Israelis, have heard nothing but bad about them etc.Im after the truth, the whys and why nots, weigh the situations, make determined results off of facts.
I understand why the prez gave monies to those energy outfits, which includes some cronyism, but there has to be insight and not go in blindly, which in this case, lending those companies gave us nothing, only cost us money, and made those cronies even richer.
States go after businesses as well with tax breaks all the time, except maybe California, where the liberalism has reached rare form.
The purpose for those tax breaks are to get people hired, put to work in those states, not what the prez had in mind here.
Then, it comes down to actually knowing if you have a potential winner here, and so far, the prez doesn't have a clue.
I learned an interesting bit of info from Mark Cuban, who does the show called sharktank.
Its a show where several billionaires listen to potential entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas or already running businesses looking to expand.
Cuban said he was over 70% on the money, yes 70%
Look at the BO admins attempts, its woeful comparatively, so going after oil companies, of which I know not the reasons for those tax breaks, yet knowing the score with the current admins ineptness, their perpetual inability to understand business in general, the cronyism shown etc etc, its something that should stop.
People didn't like the banks being lent to either, but at least there the people retained their monies, and yes screw the bankers, but save the folks, so it was a wash.
All the monies that were to be spent on infrastructure were never spent, not yet even today, as last Id heard only one third ever made it that far, and a lot of it was diverted to protect the unions, tho this pictures get purposely muddied by both sides here, but the one thing we do know is, that infrastructure never got what it was sold on, and still needs it.
This is how our government spends our money, they don't deserve to have their hands on it.
To ask for more is folly until this too stops, but its only complained about.
One thing the DHHS has suggested is a wise move, for which Ive given the prez some credit for, yet he spiked the football for doing it, yet isn't really his doing, is, the DHHS is asking the states, no not the feds, the states to create a fraud outfir regarding medicare etc.
Its totally unfunded by the feds and has to be a state run, supported thing.
Now, my only worry is this, as in my state, its up for vote, and I hope it passes, and here many dems, the local kind anyways, are much more fiscally conservative than what youll find most other places, and they too support this, as of course the republicans do, so hopefully itll pass, but, if it does, and other states take this on as well, as soon as the savings show such actions more than pay for themselves, is that after success the feds will then come in and mandate all states to do so, and we will see a loss in efficiency as well as higher costs to do the same thing with less results, as the federal government is greedy.
The closing of the WH is but one example of what out government thinks of us when we know theres plenty of room to hide much of the lowering of spending, which really isn't a lowering, just a less higher amount of spending to begin with
You want to talk about the 1.6 non-NATO rounds purchased by Homeland security for "training" purposes...
At the height of the Iraq war (more shooting was involved) the US military used 7 million rounds a month.
The amount she bought could war a full scale war for 20+ years.
She is simply trying to dry up the ammo supply for hunters as she did not purchase rounds available for use outside of the US (NATO rounds).
But I truly believe individuals are invested in ammo manufacturers and by doing so, they're giving money to their friends through this purchase.
At the height of the Iraq war (more shooting was involved) the US military used 7 million rounds a month.
The amount she bought could war a full scale war for 20+ years.
She is simply trying to dry up the ammo supply for hunters as she did not purchase rounds available for use outside of the US (NATO rounds).
But I truly believe individuals are invested in ammo manufacturers and by doing so, they're giving money to their friends through this purchase.
musical marv
March 18, 2013 8:03:23 PM
JAYDEEJOHN said:
Define the loophole first, its not a bad thing always, most the time its not.Loopholes drive a certain direction in markets, both investments and startups .
They also allow for things business wouldnt normally go into, which is what one side wants anyways, government investment into certain aspects of our economy.
Now, the businesses that get many loopholes with great return wont have the investments placed in them any longer, and this will weaken them, whether its against local or international businesses as well.
Our leaders have to actually know what theyre doing, and not vote for it now, and find out what its all about later, weve already seen the higher costs of such folly
musical marv said:
The problem is our leaders most of them have no clue in how to fix this debt crisis we are confronted with. Cutting our entitlement programs will not help that much perhaps a trifle.Our leaders actually do know how to fix this problem. They have had multiple reports prepared by a wide variety of internal and external groups (Simson-Bowles, CBO reports, GAO reports, etc.) and all have given largely the same solutions. The problem is that the solutions are nearly all politically unpalatable to the group who holds the most power at the present.
The same two problems that all of the reports identified are current and future entitlement spending. Current entitlement spending is 57% of federal spending as you can see on the CBO graph below. (Entitlement spending is "mandatory" per the CBO.) There is also a massive and unfunded future liability for entitlement spending. The Baby Boomers continue to retire and use Medicare and Social Security dollars, the 2010 healthcare act will have tens of millions of new people on Medicaid, and so forth.
The graph of federal receipts is below the spending graph. Note that the total amount of receipts is only about 2/3 of the amount of spending. Raising tax revenues by 50% is impossible according to pretty much every economist except for people on the very fringe like Paul Krugman. The problem is that people are by nature lazy rather than greedy and raising taxes will mostly result in people taking the "eh, screw it, it's not worth it" attitude. Economic activity contracts and there is less revenue than anticipated with every major tax hike in U.S. history, sometimes considerably so.
So, there is a big debate as to how much needs to be cut and what needs to be cut, but there is no debate that significant reductions in entitlement spending absolutely has to occur. We can't tax our way out of this. Some people are just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "I don't want to believe it," but it is very much true.
riser said:
They know what the issue is. How to go about fixing it without losing their jobs is the main issue.The Democrats in Congress are very unwilling to have significant entitlement cuts because it signals that their big government welfare state economic ideology is wrong and that they would lose their massive power more than they worry about losing their job as an elected official. Getting somebody to give up their ideology is very, very difficult even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Eventually the Democrats will have to go along with cutting entitlements and it will likely destroy the party as there will be a lot of infighting between the ones who accept the reality that we are broke and the ones who continue to cling to their delusion that we are not. The Republicans will take the ball and run as the fragmented Democrat Party will be weak and offer little resistance to the Republicans rolling back much of the Democrat federal regulatory regime (such as the Department of Education and the EPA) and return much of that power to the states. Democrats obviously would want to not have the above happen, and if it does have to happen, push it off as long as possible to preserve their statist status quo.
chunkymonster
March 20, 2013 7:09:18 AM
musical marv said:
Why is the Janet Napalitono department buying more bullets and arming themselves with more weapons? What is the purpose of this may i ask?Is Obama really going to start a private type militia of his? This is really weird now.COLGeek said:
Time for some tin-foil hats...[8-)Regarding the DHS, EPA, and BATFE buying up all the available ammo, there are a few theories as to what is going on.
1) The government's story is true, they are buying it for training purposes. Given the number of employees using an average of 600 rds for qualification, it is reasonable to think these Departments could need that much to train and qualify all their employees.
2) The government is intentionally causing a run on ammo as part of their overall gun control legislation scheme.
3) There are members of Congress invested in the firearms industry and are gaming the market to increase their profits.
4) And this is where the tin foil really comes in, they are buying up the ammo to prepare for any civil unrest that follows the up-and-coming financial collapse currently being orchestrated by the world banks and complicit governments. I know this borders on conspiracy but look no further than Cypress and New Zealand. Who's to say that Obama wouldn't create a false flag event to declare a police state under the guise of protecting America's assets (banks, government offices) from "domestic terrorists" and civil unrest. He's been caught lying and creating crisis to further political ends, would a false flag that much of a leap?
I would not be surprised if any one or a combination of the above were true.
MU_Engineer said:
riser said:
They know what the issue is. How to go about fixing it without losing their jobs is the main issue.The Democrats in Congress are very unwilling to have significant entitlement cuts because it signals that their big government welfare state economic ideology is wrong and that they would lose their massive power more than they worry about losing their job as an elected official. Getting somebody to give up their ideology is very, very difficult even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Eventually the Democrats will have to go along with cutting entitlements and it will likely destroy the party as there will be a lot of infighting between the ones who accept the reality that we are broke and the ones who continue to cling to their delusion that we are not. The Republicans will take the ball and run as the fragmented Democrat Party will be weak and offer little resistance to the Republicans rolling back much of the Democrat federal regulatory regime (such as the Department of Education and the EPA) and return much of that power to the states. Democrats obviously would want to not have the above happen, and if it does have to happen, push it off as long as possible to preserve their statist status quo.
I think the Republican party has all but collapsed though. They look like idiots on in the media; Democrats are playing news media like champs and winning the popularity vote there, regardless of what they are actually doing. I think the Republicans will drop the ball in the end.
Sequestration is going to hit. I'm moving down to 3 days work weeks, maybe 4-8s instead. My position is still up in the air whether I am affected or not because of what I do. The sad part is we're nearly cutting all our expenses simply by making things more efficient... to the point where I would only work 10 hours less per month, instead of a true 20% cut. It goes to show how inefficient the government is currently and there is no emphasis on being efficient. As long as the gov't contracts out the work instead of directly hiring people and setting expectations, these companies will continue to feed from the gov't teat. It's a sad reality, but when you're in the business of selling hours, not results, the money is good and the government always pays. The gov't shouldn't be running business, they fail at it horribly.
chunkymonster
March 21, 2013 6:42:17 AM
COLGeek said:
Do any of you truly believe that President Obama (or any president for that matter) would attempt to turn the US into a police state? Seriously?No, I seriously do not think so. But history is hard to ignore. Going as far back as the Sumerians and the earliest written human history, there is example after example where those wanting to change, conquer, or control a society used taxation and disarmament to subjugate the people. And, let's face it, human beings are no more civilized (some would argue less) than they were 3500 years ago.
I am not surprised by Man's tendency towards self-interested disregard for the care and well-being for his fellow Man and I am suspicious of anyone who claims to know what is better for a society than the people who live in that society.
musical marv
March 30, 2013 7:20:47 PM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
COLGeek said:
Do any of you truly believe that President Obama (or any president for that matter) would attempt to turn the US into a police state? Seriously?Our economy is nothing like Cyprus or New Zealand. Nor is our society.
Maybe not Obama specifically. I think he just thinks it's really neat to be president and he really likes the perks.
However, the people Obama has surrounded himself with throughout his life, including his mentors as a young man and more modern influences like Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder et al, would be more than happy to implement a police state and disarm the populace. Makes us more docile don't you know.
Just google the pictures of hundreds of Jews being guarded by one two soldiers. Hundreds against a few. Yet completely docile. This is called the normalcy bias. The idea that,
"ok, they took our guns, our wealth, then our homes, and now they want us to live in a labor camp. It can't GET any worse than this, right?"
Yes. Yes it can. Yes it can in a relatively short period of time too. History is clear on this.
Back to OP:
The most important issue tied directly to the budget is the continued devaluation of the dollar. America has gone from the biggest lender to the biggest borrower in the world in the past 4 decades. Until this trend is reversed, all the rest means nothing.
I read the other day that BitCoin has reached a value of $1 billion and the first home was purchased with the virtual internet currency.
We had better focus on strengthening the dollar or else all the talk about entitlements spending, military budgets, and all the rest is moot. Unless the plan is eventually move to the Amero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_currency_un...
Either way, our creditors are becoming more anxious as our debt mounts and our dollar declines. What do you think the eventual outcome will be unless this train switches tracks? Nothing good for you and I that's what.
We import so much it would have an adverse effect on the economy, as our exports would also be taxed higher in other countries.
Its not as clear a win as some think, but it could possibly help.
But then again, we need people in Washington that know what theyre doing, which ones to tax and not to.
Theres a conflict of interest as well, if Washington just sees more monies to them by taxation thru imports, yet some could harm the economy here, but they may not be intelligent enough to see past their revenues thru taxation.
Its not as clear a win as some think, but it could possibly help.
But then again, we need people in Washington that know what theyre doing, which ones to tax and not to.
Theres a conflict of interest as well, if Washington just sees more monies to them by taxation thru imports, yet some could harm the economy here, but they may not be intelligent enough to see past their revenues thru taxation.
I would expect some countries might tax what they import from the US, but the US imports so much more than we export, it would be a benefit overall. The big win, would be discouraging companies from moving out of the US for cheap labor, and then selling to the US. The goods need to be produced here, to keep the jobs here.
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!