OT "I laid off my son, today"

Page 4 of 8  


That's true on some things. My wife and I both take Omeprozole. She has a prescription and with Medicare part D she pays about $3 bucks for a months supply where I buy over the counter and pay about $15 bucks because I have no prescription insurance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/28/2010 8:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8 years later had more than doubled the deficit.
No real economist believes tax cuts increase revenue. They may be helpful in growing GDP, but never revenue.
What genius did you get that idea from anyways? There is any awful lot of wishful thinking on talk radio. You know that there is no requirement for accuracy since it is all opinion and not journalism. Not a whole lot different than professional wrestling. Enjoy the show, just don't be deceived that it is real.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Deficits occur when you spend more than you have. Period no matter the party. Taking the tax cuts out of the equation, if you have a certain amount of money coming in, and you know you are only going to have a certain amount of money coming in, then you reduce your spending to that level. Math 101. The thing about tax cuts and the "cost" is the underlying assumption that the government is some how entitled to a certain amount of money. That is the most disingenuous part of the whole discussion to my mind. The government is only entitled to the amount of tax money that I can legally avoid not sending under the current laws. Not one penny more. The fact that the Congress (again pretty much independent of the party with power over the purse strings) refuses to reign in spending to that level is a shame on the electorate .
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2010 10:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

I have nothing against cutting spending.
Here is the Fed Budget for 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
I'd be interested in seeing where you would cut 800 billion from discretionary spending. Feel free to elaborate.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First of all I would make the whole thing discretionary. Putting such a large %age out of bounds is another thing I don't entirely understand. We got this much to spend.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2010 12:01 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

That puts in SS and Medicare, that and defense are the major part. So how much would you slice out of each to get 800B? Doesn't seem like a workable plan to me, but I'd like to see some details before I pass judgment.
I think the Deficit Commission is the best plan going so far, I've heard nothing on the right that isn't posturing.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am not sure it is short term. Actually if I was king of the world, I'd pass a constitutional amendment saying that spending could not rise above inflation. Probably with some sort of added (but steadily decreasing) kicker during a 10-year phase in. I'd have a lot less of a problem with tax increases if I thought there was any real chance of long-term spending reductions. Look over about the last 30 years Congress gets a burr up its ass every so often and lowers the year-over-year percentage increase in spending to around 2% for a couple years, loses interest, and then works its way back to what is more or less a traditional 5% year over year increase. There was a series of studies over the 70s and 80s showing that if we just limited increases in spending to inflation, the deficit would go away in less than 10 years (depending on the time and assumptions). There also has never been a really good debate on what the government SHOULD be doing. For example, I have advocated since the completion of the Interstate system, that Fed gas taxes (with a little bit left for research into new building materials, safety etc.) should be done way with. If the states want to replenish that money by increasing their own taxes then that's fine. If not, then they risk economic development. I'd zero out NPR, CPB, PBS (although there was also a fairly interesting study a couple of years ago showing that PBS has more affiliates than any of the Big 4 Networks and that closing down some and selling off the redundant frequencies might actually be able to establish an endowment replacing the lost money.) I'd cut 50% from Congressional staffs, office and committee budgets. Cut out the department of Education since schools are a local function (maybe some residual for studies). There are a few others. Turn procurement over to the Pentagon letting them decide what they need instead of spending billions keeping thinks alive because they are in some CongressCritters district even though the Joint Chiefs don't want them. Could save a bundle by streamlining procurement across the government. I'd stop most of the subsidies and tax breaks for anything. If they can't make it in the real world they don't need to be done. I would consider keeping some money floating around for basic research on some topics we are currently subsidizing to pay for basic research into making them more efficient and more likely to be able to pay for themselves. I'd zero out HHS except for FDA and the research part of the NIH. Even then I would limit much of the NIH to basic research and comparative research (which statin is better than the other and do statins actually do better than (insert option here). This is information that has a general use. MCare I'd voucher so that people could find their own plans and put competition in there (the much vaunted-- or is that taunted-- government healthcare plans are pure vanilla BC/BS-type plans that benefit from a big group and the fact the government can subsidize the premiums to higher extent). Anyway this is just off the top of my head. For those 40 and below, I'd consider moving into a defined contribution instead of a defined benefit plan for SS. Take the money and invest it. Maybe a combo of the two with a lower guarantee. It can be set-up like a 401(k) where a manager (or managers) bid on the contract and you have a certain minimum number of mutual funds that you can buy into. If you want to more actively manage your account, you can move around the %ages. If you don't there are allocation methods out there based on Nobel Prize winning research that allocates according to investment outlook and put the fire and forget group into the moderately conservative middle ground. As long as there is a wall between the investment group and the politicians, this has the add advantage of freeing up a whole bunch of money for productive investment. Currently the extra money from SS is going into government bonds where they (and the interest) will have be paid for eventually. But there is no dedicated source of money so it will only make things worse as those bonds start need to be used.

We'll see.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2010 2:28 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote: (snip)

Never worked for the civilian side of the military, have you? If anything, they make the rest of FedGov procurement look efficient. I've advocated for YEARS that they need to take away purchase authority from the military services entirely. Make them buy the mundane stuff the same way the rest of FedGov does from the same sources, instead of running their own mirror universe x5 like they do now. For the weapons systems, take it away from the services to get rid of the duplication and interservice rivalry crap, and put it under a single command with a civilian head, directly under SecDef. That way, when there is a major fubar, POTUS only has to reach down 2 layers to give the dope slap.
WAY too many people in FedGov are allowed to buy stuff, IMHO, based on working there 30 years. They literally spend 100 bucks on paperwork to buy a ten dollar item.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2010 11:20 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:

it's painfully obvious u r a moron. I don't lower myself to educating morons. try gubmint schools.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2010 10:12 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:

u must be a dumbocRAT.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2010 10:46 AM, Fred wrote:

So, shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
How not unusual.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yet another unreality. The single biggest "Tax expenditure", what the Congress euphamistically calls deductions, is the tax loss related to exclusion of employer paid health care premiums (which I would argue is a not a favor to business because it is part of most people's pay). The second is mortgage exemption for homes. Out of the top ten, only 1 (deferral of income from overseas operations) is related to business. Out of top 50, only 7 go to businesses (and a lot of that is for R&D activities and such). Individuals get most of the money. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/spec.pdf (around page 308 or so)
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Remember, during the last two years of the Bush administration, the Democrats controlled Congress. Coincidence? Or cause-and-effect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, taxes on business are lower than ever.
You had better get facts b/4 claiming percentage on unemployment. Start here. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000&data_tool=%22EaG%22
Unfunded mandates? I will say O said we had to fund the wars, where as the previous administration did not fund the wars. Look it up, I'm gonna charge if I have to be your history teacher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You also have to remember when talking about the war that you have to take 25% off the top. Most of the "War Spending" bills in Congress had at least that added in domestic earmarks. Bush essentially paid off the CongressCritters of both parties.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CK Lumbernickle wrote:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000&data_tool=%22EaG%22
The chart you reference, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows unemployment during the first six years of the Bush administration averaging about 5%.
Starting in January of '08, unemployment went up like a rocket! How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your childish behavior is similar to Oren's. Somehow you think name calling makes you a 4th grader, instead of a 3rd grader.
What part of the chart are you having difficulty with? The part of Jan 2001, when Clinton handed the Bush administration a 4.2% unemployment? Or, the part of Jan 2009, when Bush handed the Obama administration a staggering almost 8% unemployment?
If you're implying the Democratic Party is responsible for the huge jump. Maybe you'd like to share what bills were signed by Bush, which they passed. List them here =================>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CK Lumbernickle wrote:

Huh? I don't call names. I made a sly reference to a quote from Dr. Strangelove to show the relationship between ... oh, never mind.

I'm looking more at the Jan 2007 period when the Democrats took over Congress.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Oh, how silly of me. The day Democrats took both houses, the economy tanked. They must be very powerful! No wonder hate radio is scared of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I never called you sophisticated, intellectual or any other name. Stop making stuff up.
I can't talk to a progressive liberal, first thing that happens when they disagree is go on the attack.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.