ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 9, 2011 14:54:45 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 15:19:46 GMT -5
Of course but not being a expert on the Industry..just want to be able to fill up, shut my eyes, swallow, pay the tab, cry a bit with a few kicks to the tires and a few &^&% and @(*(& directed anywhere it would make a difference , not stand in lines...but am sure there are deals written, special favors regultions that are favoring the industry that are really not needed..with all their risks and should be examined and so found...changed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 18:08:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 15:25:23 GMT -5
"some areas should not be subjects to cuts"
spoken like a true liberal.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 9, 2011 15:27:49 GMT -5
Some areas should not be subject to cuts
1. Veterans Benefits
2. Military Pay (Active & Reserve)
3. Social Security Payments
4. Military Pensions
5. VA Medical Care
I may be biased but would like to see the five items I listed be increased instead of being on the chopping block...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 15:29:19 GMT -5
"some areas should not be subjects to cuts" spoken like a true liberal. mmmm Archie this middle to the left feels differently....how say you on that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 18:08:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 15:30:33 GMT -5
"some areas should not be subjects to cuts" spoken like a true liberal. mmmm Archie this middle to the left feels differently....how say you on that? I say more power to ya... what was your question again?
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Feb 9, 2011 15:30:45 GMT -5
You nailed it, and I believe the OP is a liberal pretending to be a conservative, a la Stephen Colbert...a leopard cannot hide its spots...
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 9, 2011 15:33:18 GMT -5
To the degree possible, government policy should not favor one industry or business over another. It is impossible for the government to be completely divorced from businesses which engage in international trade, but government policy should be as even handed as possible. [The "as possible" takes into account that every country has different interests in particularly raw materials which may or may not be in adequate supply domestically] If you stop and think about it; the subsidy of competing industries doesn't make any real sense since each counteracts the others. In this case we're talking about subsidies to conventional energy sources and "alternative" energy sources at the same time. That is pouring money down a rat hole ~ you'd get the same effect by eliminating subsidies to both [assuming the subsidies are equal]. The idea is that by allowing the market to set the price you increase [in this case] the competitiveness of "alternative" energy by simply letting the price of conventional energy be set by market forces. The best government is the least government.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 9, 2011 15:36:06 GMT -5
Cut em all. Take the Presidents suggestion and cut the support to the oil industry but keep right on going down the list and apply the same thought process to the the farmers, the auto makers, the bankers, the movie makers, major league baseball, the DNC, the RNC, foreign governments and everyone else who is now a dependent or is being controlled through dependency.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 18:08:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 15:36:09 GMT -5
The best government is the least government. Following that to its natural conclusion and the bestest government is no government... Something seems wrong about that.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 9, 2011 15:38:36 GMT -5
Of course you are. The problem is that we won't ever be able to realistically address the budget crisis until everything is on the chopping block. No more Sacred Cows or Third Rails. If we don't stand together, we'll fall separately ~ each hanging on to our own Precious.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 9, 2011 15:44:45 GMT -5
Of course you are. The problem is that we won't ever be able to realistically address the budget crisis until everything is on the chopping block. No more Sacred Cows or Third Rails. If we don't stand together, we'll fall separately ~ each hanging on to our own Precious. Yea but we have been down this road before and nothing was done to the "Sacred Cows" and I doubt that will change IMHO...I just don't think polticians have the balls to change the status quo when it comes to cutting SS, VA, or the Military ....and if I am wrong then I will come back and admit it.....If that should happen, and of course who knows if I am still an active member here??....but I doubt it
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 9, 2011 15:46:08 GMT -5
Of course you are. The problem is that we won't ever be able to realistically address the budget crisis until everything is on the chopping block. No more Sacred Cows or Third Rails. If we don't stand together, we'll fall separately ~ each hanging on to our own Precious. Right on Safe. How long can we keep pushing these problems off on our children and grandchildren? Cut some now or wait until a collapse cuts everything later. Every dime this government wastes is for some noble pet project important to someone. Until everything is on the table, we're not really serious about addressing the problem.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 9, 2011 15:50:55 GMT -5
Of course you are. The problem is that we won't ever be able to realistically address the budget crisis until everything is on the chopping block. No more Sacred Cows or Third Rails. If we don't stand together, we'll fall separately ~ each hanging on to our own Precious. Right on Safe. How long can we keep pushing these problems off on our children and grandchildren? Cut some now or wait until a collapse cuts everything later. Every dime this government wastes is for some noble pet project important to someone. Until everything is on the table, we're not really serious about addressing the problem. You can change some of the so called "Sacred Cows" without cutting them...change the SS Payroll taxes, age for benefits, Retiree Benefits Contributions and etc all these are contained in the Paul Ryan road to recovery roadmap if anyone is interested check it out.....he has some good ideas
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 9, 2011 15:55:37 GMT -5
"That government is best which governs least." ~ Thomas Paine There "seems something about that" to those who don't know what it means. Let's just start with the concept; There is a difference between least and none. If fact, if you stop to think; You can't have least unless you have some [or at least the potential of some]. I'd say you're taking it to an "unnatural [absurd] conclusion." [You could use the example of two people with one apple and ask, "Who has the most apple and who has the least apple. If you think that way ~ God bless you.]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 18:08:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2011 15:57:13 GMT -5
"That government is best which governs least." ~ Thomas Paine There "seems something about that" to those who don't know what it means. Let's just start with the concept; There is a difference between least and none. If fact, if you stop to think; You can't have least unless you have some [or at least the potential of some]. I'd say you're taking it to an "unnatural [absurd] conclusion." [You could use the example of two people with one apple and ask, "Who has the most apple and who has the least apple. If you think that way ~ God bless you.] I guess then my question is, at what point is least, beast? I am sure we could continually cut from the government to make it less, until is it one person working an hour an week.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 9, 2011 16:05:11 GMT -5
Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Rand Paul all presented their spending cuts proposal to Obama today behind closed doors.....it will be interesting to see if they have any agreements?? But who knows???....entitlement spending has to be addressed IMHO
And the elephant in the room is Pelosi who has vowed to block any spending cuts she doesn't like or approve of...and has Harry Reid in her hip pocket..
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 9, 2011 16:08:02 GMT -5
Let's hope it doesn't get that far [I'll assume that beast = best and not least = beast]. Ideal is a goal, not a destination. We only know we've arrived after we have left. Too many cooks spoil the broth [that does not mean that a single cook can't spoil the broth, but only that a camel is a horse designed by a committee]. Probably reading a little Thomas Payne or Thomas Jefferson would help. There are those [in favor of central planning] who feel that the government can deal with all problems more effectively and fairly than private entities, I just don't agree. It's a matter of opinion.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 16:13:52 GMT -5
Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Rand Paul all presented their spending cuts proposal to Obama today behind closed doors.....it will be interesting to see if they have any agreements?? But who knows???....entitlement spending has to be addressed IMHO In his interview with O'Reilly he stressed that "entitlements " HAVE to be addressed, in fact made a point for journalist to emphazie that. There is no way the discretionary spending, even if we had none, which is impossible, could deal with the deficit. We have to look at entitlements, all of them and was asking the Journalist as well as the government to bring that up to the publics attention. cuts that will effect all of us, What the specifics will be and there will be disagreements here, absolutly as there should, will be hopefully workrd out by both parties. {Privatly I believe with plenty of leaks by both sides }
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 9, 2011 17:56:01 GMT -5
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 9, 2011 17:59:48 GMT -5
All areas should be on the table. Specifically subsidies should be stopped completely all of them, probably in a controlled manner.
Entitlements need to be massively changed and reworked,they are currently unsustainable.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 18:58:06 GMT -5
All areas should be on the table. Specifically subsidies should be stopped completely all of them, probably in a controlled manner. Entitlements need to be massively changed and reworked,they are currently unsustainable. Not sure on the "massive ". Reason? They will all effect some one and the ones doing the negotiations are elected officials and are answerable to the public and while you your self might be be such a patriot that any cost to you even a hugh one might be acceptable for the reduction of the deficit, not all, in fact most , of the electorate will be screaming if personally hard hit. The things that might be done away with , tax loopholes, defense cut backs that might be a base closing in your state, possible one you work on, defense industry moved or shut down, you work there, possible mortgage interest, seniors and Mom/Dad turn to you for help, they don't have it anymore, and on and on..hitting every one and then these same folks go stand for reelection..so the entitlements will be addressed..how massive, we'll have to see. Actually only one person here on these boards would I call a real patriot. No names to be mentioned but by information given, one who would benefit by Obama care and would definitly not be affected by doing away with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and on both was firmly against. Seriously and I believe they are not lying, they are a patriot and I admire that and give kudo's and a thumbs up. The problem is it isn't me and I don't feel many others here would fit the bill either.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 19:28:57 GMT -5
Just found this one on of all things "Huff " , this is for you lakhota..old times sake.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You are damned of you do, damned if you don't and from the same party too and it is only a quick example of what I said in post #21, has nothing to do with parties. Oh we might argue over the items cut butI guarantee I would find someone to argue with you on a cut being a good one or a bad one from the same party, go at each like cats and dogs , party politics not with standing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "WHITE HOUSE CUTTING ENERGY ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR - Because the corporate tax rate can never be low enough, the White House's 2012 budget will feature cuts from an energy initiative targeted at low-income Americans. (Is Obama just pulling these subsidies off the table so he can put them back on to get Brown, Snowe and Collins later? He wouldn't!) The proposed $2.5 billion spending cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, originally reported as $3 billion by Marc Ambinder, are the largest disclosed thus far from the proposed budget. In a letter to the White House, John Kerry wrote that "In the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens." Listen, we know what you're thinking, but all those high-speed rail seats with the extra legroom aren't going t " ----------------------------------------------------------------- I am not arguing about the alleged cuts on energy assistance, I know nothing about the assistance, what it does , how important in the scheme of things. Lets assume all items to be cuts are important. given that they are, someone will be hurt somewhere when proposed and carried out, and that some one can be you , me or the other guy. If it's you, I don't want to hear the screams , keep the mouth This is just one proposed cut, there will so many more.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 9, 2011 19:35:34 GMT -5
I don't mean massive cuts, I mean they need to be completely redesigned.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 9, 2011 20:12:36 GMT -5
I don't mean massive cuts, I mean they need to be completely redesigned. Yes and to try and undo what took a long time many Administrations and Congress's to do over night is not going to do anyone any good. Also to consider , when we get out of the mess, how do you stop a future party, Administration and Congress to just do the same thing all over again, starting small of course but then building and building.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 9, 2011 23:25:59 GMT -5
Stop and think about it dezi. What "took a long time many Administrations and Congress's" so long to do was create a series of "entitlements" which are bankrupting the nation. That is what you're defending. The problem is that we've overspent and over promised for so many years [at least 75] that we now have obligations that we cannot pay. Raising taxes would likely inhibit the "recovery" and borrowing more money would increase our obligations by not only increasing our debts, but by increasing our debt service [interest on our loans]. The debt problem will simply get worse if we do nothing. We can do one of two things or both: 1] increase our income and/or 2] reduce our spending. The shocking truth is that you can't just wish you had more income and your can't reduce spending without spending less. This is a reality test. Pay it now or pay it later ~ it isn't going to get less expensive.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 10, 2011 0:22:41 GMT -5
Never said it would, just pointing out that entitlements are going to have to be looked at and after looked at decisions made and the decisions are going to have to be reductions in entailments and it is going to be hard and it will affect all[most all anyway} depending on which entitlements. I expect a lot will be pushed off for the future, not because it is right but the realities, I am a realist, think you are too Safe, and these people making the decisions have to go back to their constituents to get reelected. We are not living in a dictatorship. A dictator could make the decisions and call out the Army to enforce and take care of those screaming the loudest. Personally and I know you disagree, "the rights of those who earned to keep yada yada" ,true, but a good place to start would have been to stop the tax cuts of the wealthiest. possible nit the $250,000 income people but the ones with income of $1 mill up..no sense not too and there is no argument you can give me to say it was correct to keep them. If you say it's not fair, I will burst a gut laughing as if anything is fair. I am a realist, like to be honest fair but this is politics and this is a major problem we have so "fair"? Grant you , possible not fair but they, those in that bracket, they would do fine, and yes not "fair". I can give you a whole discourse of what is not fair...
|
|
rileyoday
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 4:56:04 GMT -5
Posts: 236
|
Post by rileyoday on Feb 10, 2011 1:27:43 GMT -5
Im going to pick the unpopular Military Retirement.
20 year retirement at 50 % pay plus health care is too much.
40 years of benefits for 20 years service ??
I served Army 82-85 Ft Hood our largest post.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 10, 2011 5:56:48 GMT -5
Im going to pick the unpopular Military Retirement. 20 year retirement at 50 % pay plus health care is too much. 40 years of benefits for 20 years service ?? I served Army 82-85 Ft Hood our largest post. Let's see if anyone in the Pentagon or Defense Dept agrees with you. Retirees VA health care costs may be changed or are on the table according to General Shenseki..
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 10, 2011 9:26:31 GMT -5
Yes and to try and undo what took a long time many Administrations and Congress's to do over night is not going to do anyone any good. How much good will a total collapse do? Face it....cutting any government program is going to have someone screaming. We can't keep selling our children into slavery to service the debt to China because we've become too damn soft to do what we all know needs to be done. We are not entitled to spend our children's future. Suck it up cupcake....it's time to pay the piper.
|
|