71 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
Increased taxes is always their first thought
Dropping govt spending programs is always their last thought, when it occurs to them.
RE:Dropping govt spending programs
Dropping govt spending programs is always their last thought
Did you hear the crying when ?
The only program
the liberals actually want cut is our defense programs...nothing else as far as they're concerned, and yet, it is the ONLY spending that the Federal Government according to our Constitution is justifiably involved in. Everything else is supposed to be left to the individual States. That isn't 'crying' you hear...it's outrage at liberals believing that Greek/Italian-like entitlements are good but defending our own country and keeping it secure is ridiculous and unnecessary, to the point that we have a president and an attorney general actually ingoring and refusing to implement our own laws regarding security.
If you look at history, all of the entitlement countries were the ones who were so handily invaded because none have spent money on their own defense and security building, while countries like China, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, and Iran have spent all of the money they have taken from their own people via taxing them excessively on building up defense at the expense of their people's well-being. Two extremes...which one would you prefer?
RE: Everything else is supposed to be left to the
Everything else is supposed to be left to the individual States.
Defense is what the Feds have control over...according to you and the constitution, They don't have to go to anyone else for approval, where easier/better to make cuts in Federal spending?
It would be like you(the federal gov) trying to cut your debt by asking your neighbour(the state) to cut spending.
Me (the Federal Government)
shouldn't have to ask my neighbor to cut spending at all in order to pay my debt....I should cut everything that I have taken control of and away from the States and leave Defense alone; that is the easier/better position to reduce our national debt. As for the States cutting their own spending, it will be based upon their own ability to get revenue...they should only spend what they take in; however, if they are in debt and want to balance their budgets based on the Federal law that says they MUST balance their budgets each year, they will, in addition to cutting spending across the board, including union benefits, put it to a vote to their populace to have a 'temporary' tax increase in sales tax that will go exclusively to the debt reduction and when it is paid in full, put an end to that temporary tax. Make sure that the population knows prior to the vote that whatever tax increase that has to take place will end BEFORE the next governor's and legislative members leave office so that the temporary tax cannot be carried over and never end as some taxes have a tendency to do. The people have to have a definite 'pull out' date even if it means that the temp tax will be fairly high in order to meet that deadline. Most people will accept an honest evaluation of the facts, especially if cutting spending is part of the total package to reduce the State's debt. I do NOT AGREE to a tax increase by the Feds in order to accomplish the same goal because the tax increase would not be fairly split among all the people, it would never go away, it would never be earmarked strictly for the national debt, and I don't trust the Federal Reserve or anyone in the Finance Committee (such as Frank) and I certainly don't trust Geithner.
The Feds are responsible for Defense,
Let's suppose that they decide that ALL defense money is spent in Washington DC.
NO Fed money for defense in any state.
Do you have a problem with that?
including union benefits,
let's try and stay on topic here...Federal money for defense...that's the topic.
You're making suppositions
that don't exist in our Constitution because it is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government to defend this country; therefore, even if ALL defense money is SPENT in DC, it is their responsibility to make sure that part of that money goes to the States to be used for that purpose.
Union benefits are part of a State's budget and therefore part of what I was discussing regarding the State's Federal requirement to balance every year. They would, therefore, also be subject to cuts in order to do that. Do you not agree?
Welfare entitlements are so bad
that those on them won't even go pick their own food from a field even when it's free. When I lived in Florida welfare recipients could go out at the end of a season to many "truck farms" (grow vegetables) and glean or pick whatever was left over in the fields, but instead they only wanted "food stamps" so they could get it at the supermarket after someone else had picked it for them. It's unbelievable the amount of stuff that remains in a field and could be used by them after the main picking and shipping has been done. Get them off their duffs and out into the field to pick something completely for themselves at no cost other than going there to do it. No, they wouldn't budge off the couch waiting for that welfare check and food stamp booklets to arrive. It's not like they would be pickin' cotton. It's not like they had to make an investment beyond taking a ride there and getting some of what was left before it was plowed under. These were people who wouldn't even pick up a piece of garbage right in front of their own housing unit, even if it's something one of their own children dropped there. They were lazy good for nothing useless eaters and proud to be so and sure it was their "right".
RE: welfare recipients could go out at the end of a season
welfare recipients could go out at the end of a season to many "truck
farms" (grow vegetables) and glean or pick whatever was left over in the
Did they have to walk to and from the truck farm or was transportation provided? like most farms are outside city limits....more people on welfare live in the city...many don't have cars....Steve said walking on the FM roads in Texas was rather risky...Florida has more old farts on the road (behind the wheel) than Texas doesn't it?
Push a shopping cart 10 miles(one way) to get 15 lbs of potatoes?
use school buses to tak'em there
A lot of those are just sitting during harvest time anyway since school may not be in session if it's still summer. I'd bet if you provided buses to fields open for gleaning, you'd still get none or only a few willing to get on the bus and go.
BUT...Did they...provide transportation?
not what they could do...what did they do?
and who is going to drive them...what about insurance on the vehicles and what if something happens to the passengers, YOU are a litigious society.
Free Veg North of the Border
Thousands dig in for free potatoes
EDMONTON — Edmonton's Great Potato Giveaway, it turned out, was greater than anyone could have imagined.
of people showed up Saturday to get their share of 45,000 kilograms of
free potatoes freshly dug from fields at Gordon Visser's farm in the
The first potato lovers arrived hours before the event started at 9 a. m.
By mid-morning, a huge traffic jam stretched down 195th Avenue and backed up onto Manning Drive.
When Becky McFee, her husband and their children got stuck in the
traffic jam around 11 a. m., Becky couldn't sit still. She got out of
their vehicle and started running toward the farm. "I ran about three
miles to get here, because I heard the potatoes were running out," she
You know as well as I do....
.....that our safety is not determined by how much we spend on defense, but on HOW we spend it. The key to ALL budget cuts should be to identify waste and also spending that just doesn't make sense anymore, e.g. military programs that are outdated, no longer needed or don't address the realities of today's world. The Cold War is long over but it seems like many Republicans still think in terms of an arms race, and any attempt to question any of that spending gets you labeled as someone who doesn't care about our safety, yadda yadda yadda.
And you know as well as I do
that when an order comes down to cut Defense with a specific number they have to reach, even if they found all of the waste, it wouldn't hit that target, which means crucial military cuts happen when they shouldn't. The only answer is to NOT specify an actual dollar amount and let the heads of each Defense department find what absolutely has to go and what has to stay. The way the Defense budget works is that when a project is budgeted each year, that entire amount has to be spent by a specific date or they lose the balance and it has to wait to be appropriated again before the project can be completed. THAT is a waste because you have people standing around on a payroll doing nothing while Congress makes up its mind on how much of a budget to give to them again for the next fiscal year. When something happens that slows down a project (parts don't come in on time, etc), that money should not have to go back because it hasn't been spent yet when possibly the parts would show up a week later and now they don't have the funds to pay for them. Allow the funds to stay put and let Congress allocate less for the following year if necessary. I don't know if all Federal programs/projects work the same way, but if it does, that's the most ridiculous waste of all.
That makes sense to me
Another issue is that they'll spend money on things they don't need because they know that if they don't, their appropriation the next year will be smaller (e.g. some of those $800 toilet seats really weren't; they just had to stick the money somewhere to show they spent it).
Appropriations should be based on estimates of what they'll need for the coming year. What they spent in the previous year really doesn't matter. For example, an aircraft carrier lasts quite a long time; you don't have to buy those every single year, so the money spent on one this year wouldn't necessarily be needed next year.
The biggest problem with the military spending
is all the Congress critters have their pet projects that the military doesn't even want and will raise the roof if those are cut.
That's why I asked
What if the Feds decided to do "all things Defense" in Washington DC.
Child proof, NOT!
As for novelty lighers, that maybe true that children are delighted by its use. However, long before these novelty lighters, the message was "don't play with matches" for children. So, like everything else it got upgraded to include these lighters. You're not going to stop kids from causing fires, it'll happen one way or another. -----Willy
sound like a stupid idea to make lighters look like toys to me. From your link,
Or explosive devices.
The airline tax
is two-fold...so far I haven't found any links that completely describe the details, but from what I heard on my local news when I posted my original post about it, it boils down to
1. BO wants to impose a flat $100 fee (tax) on every plane that departs from any airport within the USA that will go directly to the Feds. None of it goes to the airport for anything....and that means your flight fare will increase to cover that fee.
2. Tripling the TSA charges....this is not going to any security measure. It is to be sent directly to the Feds supposedly to pay down the national debt, again increasing your flight fee everytime you fly anywhere.
Well, can't raise taxes on the rich by 4.5%
So got to get the money somewhere. Don't believe we can save our way out of that much debt.
Credit counseling will even tell you to get another job or some way to increase income as well as cutting costs for personal problems.
your flight fare will increase to cover that fee
let's do some math for Toni.
the "average" citizen (when they fly) is not alone...usually with at least 100 other passengers sometimes with as many as 300 other passengers.
100 passengers....$100 fee= $1 increase
300 passengers....$100 fee= 33¢ increase
The Donald in his private jet...$100.
And every other piper pilot
who are all private citizens who own their own small planes get hit the hardest. Yeah....the middle class get hit all over again that way, and you're fine with that math.
Oh, BTW, on an interview I saw recently, somebody from the audience asked 'what is considered to be rich according to the Feds with this "tax the rich" idea'
The person, can't recall his name, on stage who actually works for IRS, answered "anybody making over $325,000 a year". So you are NOT talking about millionairs and billionairs like BO and other Dems keep touting. That's considered to be middle class by most financial advisor standards today and includes most small businesses.
RE; somebody from the audience asked
somebody from the audience asked 'what is considered to be rich......"anybody making over $325,000 a year".
And YOU consider "the middle class" all private citizens who own their own small plane
You got a small plane?...how many people do you know that own a small plane....I don't have one...I know (of) some that have a small private plane...they don't know me...I read about them, or see them buzzing my house.
Since I don't have a small plane I guess I'm not middle class...what's lower than middle class?
You got a small plane?
I know quite a few people making $325K a year who own their own plane and they would have to pay $100 every time they depart from any airport. Is that fair to you?
Trying to find more but
all the stories are about the opposition to it, not the details.
If he really wants to
rapidly increase revenue AND 140,000 jobs almost immediately, all he has to do is lift his pen up and sign the darn pipeline bill from Canada.
RE: 140,000 jobs almost immediately
You realize there will be a lot of UNION jobs on the pipeline.
But that won't help the economy...they (Union workers) don't spend their money.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)