Skip to main content

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_...s_lame_duck_politics

quote:
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government, vastly complicating Democratic attempts to leave their own stamp on the final days of the post-election Congress.

"While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," all 42 GOP senators wrote in a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The 42 signatures are more than enough to block action on almost any item he wishes to advance....



Well that's a relief. I was beginning to think their priorities weren't in order or something. I mean, tax cuts for the rich are so much more important than figuring out what to do about 2 million Americans losing unemployment benefits.

Way to go, boys! A bottle of Dom Perignon Rose for you all! Oh wait. That might be in bad "taste" (get it?) since so many Americans are losing their unemployment benefits and don't know how they're going to pay their bills this month. Perhaps a bottle of Salon 1995 would be more appropriate.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think you purposely left out half the story. The GOP Senators are also pushing the Dems to pass appropriations to keep the government functioning.

quote:
"While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," they wrote. "Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority." http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ax-cuts-budget-pass/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-pass/#ixzz16u5jZlos
quote:
Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government


This is just political negotiation. The republicans want this, the democrats want that, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

Dont take it personal, if the roles were reversed the Democrats would be doing the same exact thing......

Captain
Actual, they did when they took over in 2006.

It's just a game to them. When 2012 rolls around and all the incumbents die a slow death, maybe the next group will get the idea.

They have to pass funding to keep the government running. They have to pass extensions of benefits if they plan to. The tax rates can wait until January.
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
quote:
Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government


This is just political negotiation. The republicans want this, the democrats want that, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

Dont take it personal, if the roles were reversed the Democrats would be doing the same exact thing......

Captain


Do I think the Democrats are motivated by altruism in their pursuit to extend the unemployment benefits? For the most part, no; they're only interested in doing what it takes to keep their seats, just like the Republicans.

But at least the Democrats are making the unemployed a priority, as they should. The only source of income just got cut off for people who don't know how they're going to pay their bills this month, much less buy Christmas presents for their kids. Tax cuts can wait.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:

It's just a game to them. When 2012 rolls around and all the incumbents die a slow death, maybe the next group will get the idea.



All this past election did was rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; the next election will be more of the same. If ALL the incumbents get the boot in 2012, I'll be very surprised.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:

Do I think the Democrats are motivated by altruism in their pursuit to extend the unemployment benefits? For the most part, no; they're only interested in doing what it takes to keep their seats, just like the Republicans.

But at least the Democrats are making the unemployed a priority, as they should. The only source of income just got cut off for people who don't know how they're going to pay their bills this month, much less buy Christmas presents for their kids. Tax cuts can wait.


Why should the tax cut EXTENSIONS wait? The republicans have the leverage now, if they dont use it, they may not get it passed. This game is played everyday, with high stakes that affect you and I much more than it affects them. The republicans believe that extending the tax cuts is the right thing to do. Not just for the rich, for everyone. I, for one, don't approve of raising ANYONES taxes until Washington gets its act together and cuts spending.....

The truth of the matter is this is a game to both parties. The only thing at stake for them is their seats.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_...s_lame_duck_politics

quote:
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government, vastly complicating Democratic attempts to leave their own stamp on the final days of the post-election Congress.

"While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," all 42 GOP senators wrote in a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The 42 signatures are more than enough to block action on almost any item he wishes to advance....



Well that's a relief. I was beginning to think their priorities weren't in order or something. I mean, tax cuts for the rich are so much more important than figuring out what to do about 2 million Americans losing unemployment benefits.

Way to go, boys! A bottle of Dom Perignon Rose for you all! Oh wait. That might be in bad "taste" (get it?) since so many Americans are losing their unemployment benefits and don't know how they're going to pay their bills this month. Perhaps a bottle of Salon 1995 would be more appropriate.


I'd rather see them ALL enjoy a glass of Arsenic 2010. Just my thoughts.
Once again, the rethugliteacons are not showing their true hand. The following is an excerpt from The Economist:

If republicans are so worried about the "a job-killing tax hike" discussed in their letter (a distinctly Keynesian perspective by the way), then use the money gained from allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy to fund an extension of the Making Work Pay tax cuts in the stimulus package that went to middle and lower class households. The GOP is refusing to extend the Making Work Pay tax cuts, apparently the jobs lost when taxes go up for the non-wealthy don't count. Since these tax cuts are likely to result in more spending than tax cuts for the wealthy, this would increase rather than decrease jobs. If the GOP really cares about jobs, they'll get on board. If they block the legislation, as they most likely would, then we'll see who is reading the "verdict" from the election correctly.
taxed to death, i was out of line to say i wish your family had to do without. i apolize for that. i do not wish anyone bad luck, but i do feel there is way to much greed in this world. it does worry me that families have there on source of living cut out because there are not a lot of jobs out there. i hope and pray that there will be a way for these families during this hard time america is in.
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Once again, the rethugliteacons are not showing their true hand. The following is an excerpt from The Economist:

If republicans are so worried about the "a job-killing tax hike" discussed in their letter (a distinctly Keynesian perspective by the way), then use the money gained from allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy to fund an extension of the Making Work Pay tax cuts in the stimulus package that went to middle and lower class households. The GOP is refusing to extend the Making Work Pay tax cuts, apparently the jobs lost when taxes go up for the non-wealthy don't count. Since these tax cuts are likely to result in more spending than tax cuts for the wealthy, this would increase rather than decrease jobs. If the GOP really cares about jobs, they'll get on board. If they block the legislation, as they most likely would, then we'll see who is reading the "verdict" from the election correctly.


C'mon rocky. This is NOT from The Economist (a respectable British magazine; center-left on social issues; center-right on economics). This is from a lefty professor at the University of Oregon who has a blog: The Economist's View.

Maybe someone should start a "rocky's lie of the day" thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
quote:
Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government


This is just political negotiation. The republicans want this, the democrats want that, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

Dont take it personal, if the roles were reversed the Democrats would be doing the same exact thing......

Captain


WHAT??????????? Well this IS spin, considering the letter signed by ALL republican senators vows to block ALL legislation, even health relief benefits for 911 rescue workers, until the millionaires get to keep their tax cuts. Electraglide is a good example of a TRUE gentleperson and is reflecting the philosophy of Jesus Christ during this holiday season, unfortunately, there are a lot more of the rethug crowd on this forum and in the halls of congress who have the philosophy: I got mine, I want more and to hell with the rest of you. Really apropo during this Christmas season for republican hypocrites of all stripes.
Aww, Rocky, back to name calling again. Its ok, we forgive you. Did you complain when the Democrats shoved the healthcare bill down the throats of the republican masses? Have you complained, in the past, when democrats used this same tactic to try to get their legislation passed? The same tactic is used when they want to get their pet projects approved as well (which is part of the 'waste' folks keep talking about).

Admit it, your complaint is the fact that the republicans once again have the ability to prevent the democrats from shoving their legislation and projects down our throats without at least getting some agreement from your sworn enemy.
And, just for the record, I doubt there are many, if any, here that are affected if the tax cuts stay in place for the highest earners. Those of us that you are talking trash about just dont believe the government should keep putting their hands in our pockets (republican or democrat) without getting their spending under control.

Show me some true work on decreasing spending and actually budgeting and I may join you in the increase the taxes fight. Problem is, we increase the taxes now with the promise to work on spending. And we know what their promises are worth......
quote:
WHAT??????????? Well this IS spin, considering the letter signed by ALL republican senators vows to block ALL legislation, even health relief benefits for 911 rescue workers, until the millionaires get to keep their tax cuts. Electraglide is a good example of a TRUE gentleperson and is reflecting the philosophy of Jesus Christ during this holiday season, unfortunately, there are a lot more of the rethug crowd on this forum and in the halls of congress who have the philosophy: I got mine, I want more and to hell with the rest of you. Really apropo during this Christmas season for republican hypocrites of all stripes.


And what about Demonrat hypocrisy? Harry Reid doesn't seem to give a ratz arse about those poor 911 workers, those losing unemployment benefits, the middle class tax cuts, etc. He seems to only care about illegal aliens.

quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed four different versions of the controversial immigration bill known as the DREAM Act without a hearing on any of them, drawing outrage from the top Republican on the committee that would have handled the package.

The Nevada senator, who narrowly escaped a defeat in the November election, has pursued an unusual approach to advancing the bill that gives young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military a pathway to legal status.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...s-dream-act-hearing/
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
Aww, Rocky, back to name calling again. Its ok, we forgive you. Did you complain when the Democrats shoved the healthcare bill down the throats of the republican masses? Have you complained, in the past, when democrats used this same tactic to try to get their legislation passed? The same tactic is used when they want to get their pet projects approved as well (which is part of the 'waste' folks keep talking about).

Admit it, your complaint is the fact that the republicans once again have the ability to prevent the democrats from shoving their legislation and projects down our throats without at least getting some agreement from your sworn enemy.


ONCE AGAIN????????? What has gone on for the past two years from the party of NO or in Boehners world HELL NO! Just what all have you heard from Rush Limbaugh?????? The republicans are showing their true colors and you and the rest of the right wing radicals are still faking color blindness holding out for tax cuts for millionaires and denying benefits for the unemployed, the economy be ****ed!
Wow, Rocky, you'll ride it until its dead, wont you. The republicans are not asking for Tax cuts, they are asking that taxes not be INCREASED by extending the cuts that are ALREADY IN PLACE. Not really a hard concept to grasp.

Tax cuts mean revenue would decrease moving forward. Extending the tax cuts means we keep the 'status quo' on our income taxes. NO CHANGE. At the same time, the govt should be working on DECREASING SPENDING. What have your democrat friends proposed to do this?

I'm beginning to agree that someone should start the 'Rockys lie of the day' thread.

Here is a link to a great example of WASTE. Thanks Jennifer!

http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=11143386

http://forums.timesdaily.com/e...342000009#6342000009
quote:
The republicans are not asking for Tax cuts, they are asking that taxes not be INCREASED by extending the cuts that are ALREADY IN PLACE. Not really a hard concept to grasp.

The dems have to have them expire. They based their fake numbers on this to make the health-care bill balance with the budget. Problem is, they based it on all cuts expiring, not just the upper range. Now they realize that would have the effect of raising taxes on the middle class, and that makes Obama's statement of 'not one dime' a lie.
The question was "has the fedgov ever created a job" and the answer is yes, hundreds of thousands of them, and many are vital and necessary to our modern standard of living. Some are even mandated by the Constitution. And 99% of them will still be there 10years from now. Agencies like DHS are growing daily...adding Amtrak stations and interstate highways to the venues they will secure with the use of checkpoints.
quote:
The question was "has the fedgov ever created a job" and the answer is yes, hundreds of thousands of them


You won't find anywhere that I've denied that.

quote:
many are vital and necessary to our modern standard of living


That's debatable. Some would certainly exist if the private sector had to provide those services, some would not. Many that did exist in the private sector would not command the wage that the government provides.

quote:
Some are even mandated by the Constitution


Only a small percentage, like the post office. And, we could probably scrap that and be just fine. The American Letter Mail Company was outperforming the US postal service in the 1840's, until the government shut it down.

quote:
And 99% of them will still be there 10years from now


I'm sure you're right. That doesn't mean they are necessary.
quote:
That's debatable. Some would certainly exist if the private sector had to provide those services, some would not. Many that did exist in the private sector would not command the wage that the government provides.

And they would be run more efficently, and if left alone by government, make a profit instead of having to be bailed out by our tax dollars.
quote:
Only a small percentage, like the post office. And, we could probably scrap that and be just fine. The American Letter Mail Company was outperforming the US postal service in the 1840's, until the government shut it down.

Now the PO is fast becoming obsolete. Already many workers have nothing to do, BUT they still get paid full salary. Makes you wonder what will happen the day the PO is gone, will they still pay those workers sitting at home?
NASA does alot of defense department work, most of it in HSV. Our military is totally dependent of the use of satellites.

Scraping the Post Office is not an option.

I think the National Parks are one of the real treasures of the nation, and that taking them out of federal control would probably not benefit the taxpayer in the slightest.

The private sector can do many of the fedgov operations but probably not cheaper, and without the benefit of the force of law.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I dont need any help Jenn, I can hire all the Mexicans I need for $4/hour down at the Home Depot. If it werent for all those border guards, they would be more affordable.
Yes Juan, I'm very familiar with your love of illegals, but maybe you should check again. Seems like we're "losing" more and more of the illegals each day. People are refusing to hire them and they're moving on. If you play your cards right you can hitch a ride with them. OR you could "make a run for the border" and live happily ever after in Mexico. Smiler
quote:
I give up. All of you are intent on living like inbred hillbillies of the 18th century, content in knowing you pay very low taxes. I have got to get out of AlObama.


Are you a government employee or something? I don't mind the cheap and tactless name-calling, but I can't understand your love of all things state-produced. Beaurocracy is expensive and inefficient, yet you seem to want more of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
I dont need any help Jenn, I can hire all the Mexicans I need for $4/hour down at the Home Depot. If it werent for all those border guards, they would be more affordable.
Yes Juan, I'm very familiar with your love of illegals, but maybe you should check again. Seems like we're "losing" more and more of the illegals each day. People are refusing to hire them and they're moving on. If you play your cards right you can hitch a ride with them. OR you could "make a run for the border" and live happily ever after in Mexico. Smiler


How on earth would you be familiar with my supposed love of illegals? Or legals? There are plenty for hire in HSV. My employer is moving at least part of our manufacturing to Mexico so I may be able to move to Arizona or NM soon. Its 75 in Tucson today!!!
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
NASA.

National Park Service.

Post Office.

Air Traffic Controllers.

Dont those agencies have employees? Arent they necessary government functions?


What item does any of these jobs produce that can be sold for money. They are service type jobs that have to be supported by money made from selling something that was actually produced and sold by someone somewhere. We cannot exist on more and more jobs like the ones mentioned.
quote:
How on earth would you be familiar with my supposed love of illegals? Or legals? There are plenty for hire in HSV. My employer is moving at least part of our manufacturing to Mexico so I may be able to move to Arizona or NM soon. Its 75 in Tucson today!!!

I know it's BS and lies on your part but we can hope the move comes through. As for your love of illegals, think about all the places you post.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
My employer is moving at least part of our manufacturing to Mexico so I may be able to move to Arizona or NM soon. Its 75 in Tucson today!!!


Did he say why Juan? Tax rates, Obamacare, wages?


Maybe to take advantage of the tax loopholes imposed by the Bush administration and republicans for outsourced companies?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The question was "has the fedgov ever created a job" and the answer is yes, hundreds of thousands of them, and many are vital and necessary to our modern standard of living. Some are even mandated by the Constitution. And 99% of them will still be there 10years from now. Agencies like DHS are growing daily...adding Amtrak stations and interstate highways to the venues they will secure with the use of checkpoints.


Amtrack, another money losing project.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The question was "has the fedgov ever created a job" and the answer is yes, hundreds of thousands of them, and many are vital and necessary to our modern standard of living. Some are even mandated by the Constitution. And 99% of them will still be there 10years from now. Agencies like DHS are growing daily...adding Amtrak stations and interstate highways to the venues they will secure with the use of checkpoints.


Amtrack, another money losing project.


Whether or not that will be the case in the future is yet to be known, but compared to the suppliments to the automotive industry in the form of highways, and to the aviation industry in the form of money to keep airports going (Muscle Shoals is prime example), I would say it is money well spent.
Good rail transportation is something well worth our support.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The question was "has the fedgov ever created a job" and the answer is yes, hundreds of thousands of them, and many are vital and necessary to our modern standard of living. Some are even mandated by the Constitution. And 99% of them will still be there 10years from now. Agencies like DHS are growing daily...adding Amtrak stations and interstate highways to the venues they will secure with the use of checkpoints.


Amtrack, another money losing project.


Whether or not that will be the case in the future is yet to be known, but compared to the suppliments to the automotive industry in the form of highways, and to the aviation industry in the form of money to keep airports going (Muscle Shoals is prime example), I would say it is money well spent.
Good rail transportation is something well worth our support.


The federal portion of the highway system in the US is financed, in the main, by federal gas taxes, with 10 percent allocated for commuter lines (rail and bus). I would support the debt reduction committee's suggestion of raise the gas tax enough to pay all highway expenses out of that revenue stream. Agreed, the small airport subsidies should be phased out. The local bus company could run a small bus or van to the Huntsville airport cheaper.

Rail transportation for goods is running well in the US with little need for US government support. An expansion is Amtrack would cost hundreds of billions and is unnecessary. A good example of the waste involved is the Acela route from DC to NYC. The Acela costs about $60, one way, for a four and a half hour ride. The Acela Express costs about $120, one way, for a four hour ride. Several private bus services make the same run in four hours and costs run from $20 to $25. Both the systems provide Wifi. Bolt bus system throws in free snacks. Why should the government keep this money losing system running?

The rail system in Europe is government supported, even the French high speed TVG. All money losers.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
The Government cannot, does not, and never has "created" a job other than a politician type job. The Gov't relies solely upon taxes of course (our money) and should only take money in taxes as necessary to execute "necessary" Government programs and infrastructure. Anything else is robbery.

I should have been more specific, I suppose. The Gov't cannot create a "non-politician" job out of thin air without creating a need out of thin air.

Postal Jobs - Private sector does it much better, they just can't compete with a service that loses money

National Park Service - Un-necessary but I do like the Parks.

Air Traffic Controllers - Replaced by Reagan when they went on strike. Replaced by CONTRACTORS for the most part, with GOVT officials to oversee them.

NASA - everything produced by private companies. GOVT workers do not turn a wrench, oversight only.

Yes we can hire millions of contractors to produce something mandated by the GOVT and hire thousands of GOVT employees to oversee. Almost all are unnecessary.

NASA working for DOD has evolved, not originally intended. Just another GOVT program that could not be shut down after its' goal was accomplished. Not against NASA, just a good example. Once a program starts, it never ends. It may have highs and lows in funding but it never ends.

GOVT produces nothing, zilch (except more worthless paper and coin money). Services, yes, zillions of un-necessary services. Private sectors do it better, period.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

I should have been more specific, I suppose. The Gov't cannot create a "non-politician" job out of thin air without creating a need out of thin air.

Postal Jobs - Private sector does it much better, they just can't compete with a service that loses money

National Park Service - Un-necessary but I do like the Parks.

Air Traffic Controllers - Replaced by Reagan when they went on strike. Replaced by CONTRACTORS for the most part, with GOVT officials to oversee them.

NASA - everything produced by private companies. GOVT workers do not turn a wrench, oversight only.

Yes we can hire millions of contractors to produce something mandated by the GOVT and hire thousands of GOVT employees to oversee. Almost all are unnecessary.

NASA working for DOD has evolved, not originally intended. Just another GOVT program that could not be shut down after its' goal was accomplished. Not against NASA, just a good example. Once a program starts, it never ends. It may have highs and lows in funding but it never ends.

GOVT produces nothing, zilch (except more worthless paper and coin money). Services, yes, zillions of un-necessary services. Private sectors do it better, period.


Most of US jobs dont produce anything, as we are a service economy.

No private company will do the constitutionally mandated USPO job for a fixed unit cost as we have today.

I am going to go ahead and assume that you have no idea what NASA, in HSV or elsewhere, actually does.

Obviously, as demonstrated in this forum repeatedly, we need a better public education system.
quote:
No private company will do the constitutionally mandated USPO job for a fixed unit cost as we have today.


And?

quote:
I am going to go ahead and assume that you have no idea what NASA, in HSV or elsewhere, actually does.


You are correct. I don't know the inner workings or day to day activities of NASA. I also don't know the inner workings of Google, Alcoa, Cisco, Johnson & Johnson or a host of other businesses, but I'm not legally mandated to fund those businesses.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
No private company will do the constitutionally mandated USPO job for a fixed unit cost as we have today.


And?

quote:
I am going to go ahead and assume that you have no idea what NASA, in HSV or elsewhere, actually does.


You are correct. I don't know the inner workings or day to day activities of NASA. I also don't know the inner workings of Google, Alcoa, Cisco, Johnson & Johnson or a host of other businesses, but I'm not legally mandated to fund those businesses.


Thats usually true. People indict all government spending as waste yet have no idea how the money is actually spent.

quote:
People indict all government spending as waste yet have no idea how the money is actually spent.


"Waste" is hard to define. Private capital is allocated based on needs, profit opportunities, under-served markets, etc... Public capital is allocated based on, well, not the way private capital is allocated. Just because we get something for our money doesn't mean the money isn't "wasted." I'd be wasting alot of money if I paid $50 for every 12oz soda I purchased, but I'd still be getting a soda. The only way to truly know what these government provided services are worth is to let the market price them, and in most cases we've never allowed that to happen.
Got news for ya slick, I work on the base, hold TWO GOVT funded jobs, knew more about NASA as a kid than you will know when you die, and never said all GOVT spending is a waste. Please spare me of your knowledge or lack thereof, I'll put my degree up against yours any day. Public education, really, you have nothing else?????????
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Got news for ya slick, I work on the base, hold TWO GOVT funded jobs, knew more about NASA as a kid than you will know when you die, and never said all GOVT spending is a waste. Please spare me of your knowledge or lack thereof, I'll put my degree up against yours any day. Public education, really, you have nothing else?????????


Blah, blah, blah...you're not really saying anything. As a fedgov employee, you should be able to provide at least 2 examples of blatant fedgov waste of taxpayers monies without even trying.
Maybe not so slick after all, never said I was a "Fedgov employee", another incorrect assumption on your part. I do however see, meet, and conduct business with several on a daily basis in the places you seem to have such a great knowlege of.

Sorry, but you never know who is reading these posts and sometimes it is someone with a greater knowledge of the subject being discussed than the knowledge you pretend to know. Doesn't prevent one from having an opinion, but when you call ME out as clueless when you haven't a clue what YOU are rambling about, I can't help but point out the BS.
quote:
Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


I've done this before, but here's some more:

1) Federal funds tied to merit based performance in schools - a No Child Left Behind product

2) Billions are spent each year on farm subsidies to help the poor, family farmer. In reality, most all of this goes to big agribusiness.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


I've done this before, but here's some more:

1) Federal funds tied to merit based performance in schools - a No Child Left Behind product

2) Billions are spent each year on farm subsidies to help the poor, family farmer. In reality, most all of this goes to big agribusiness.


Allow me to add a couple:

> Extra jet engines. The Lockheed Martin F35 Lightening is a "single engine" joint strike fighter. Note I said "single engine".
However, the engines are built in John Boehner's district, and for each and every F35, we pay to build an additional jet engine, making the F35 Single engine fighter a 2 engine aircraft. All the spare engines are stored.
We probably need to have extra engines on the shelf, but do we need 100%. Hell no, waste- government waste to benefit John Boehner.
>more B2's than we need or the Air Force wants.
Just check out the cost here - too much for me to post- http://www.cdi.org/issues/aviation/b296.html

If you are going to talk about government waste, you need to start with the military industrial comples and the defense budget . Everything else shrinks to insignificance
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
You're just an incompetent liar, then??? Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


Lying about what??
I just wrote a four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other side because the "official in charge" liked the looks of it on the other side. Can that count as four of your required examples? Maybe my next example can be just a half.

I'm not a liar or a BS'er, you are full of yourself. I see why response to you is so negative, throughout. I'm sad for you.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
You're just an incompetent liar, then??? Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


Lying about what??
I just wrote a four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other side because the "official in charge" liked the looks of it on the other side. Can that count as four of your required examples? Maybe my next example can be just a half.

I'm not a liar or a BS'er, you are full of yourself. I see why response to you is so negative, throughout. I'm sad for you.
Like I posted earlier, whenever he asks he is always given plenty of examples of waste. He just chooses to ignore them. I can't imagine any person living in the US that can't see examples of waste all around them.
Everyone is so sensitive. Why do people take things so personally? If fedgov waste is so rampant, examples should be easy to point out and obvious, yet all we get is
quote:
four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other
.

Lets have the specifics. What building? What official? Lets get the press involved and prevent such waste rather than just anonymously complain on some forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
You're just an incompetent liar, then??? Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


Lying about what??
I just wrote a four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other side because the "official in charge" liked the looks of it on the other side. Can that count as four of your required examples? Maybe my next example can be just a half.

I'm not a liar or a BS'er, you are full of yourself. I see why response to you is so negative, throughout. I'm sad for you.
Like I posted earlier, whenever he asks he is always given plenty of examples of waste. He just chooses to ignore them. I can't imagine any person living in the US that can't see examples of waste all around them.


Waaaahhhhhhh. If you see waste all around you and you do nothing, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give us one specific example, Jennifer. Just one. Should be easy.
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
Poor, poor ingnorant juan, he still thinks the Bush tax cuts were for the rich only. If he was as intelligent as he would like us to think he is he would do some research. He would then know that the cuts were across the board.



quote:
poor ingnorant juan
That right there is ironical.

The rich pay all the taxes so they therefore are the primary beneficiary of any cuts in federal income tax rates. Isnt that true?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
You're just an incompetent liar, then??? Give two examples of the waste of federal taxpayer dollars. Just two, as long as the waste amounts to at least $1million


Lying about what??
I just wrote a four million dollar change to move rooms from one side of the building to the other side because the "official in charge" liked the looks of it on the other side. Can that count as four of your required examples? Maybe my next example can be just a half.

I'm not a liar or a BS'er, you are full of yourself. I see why response to you is so negative, throughout. I'm sad for you.
Like I posted earlier, whenever he asks he is always given plenty of examples of waste. He just chooses to ignore them. I can't imagine any person living in the US that can't see examples of waste all around them.


Waaaahhhhhhh. If you see waste all around you and you do nothing, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give us one specific example, Jennifer. Just one. Should be easy.
I've given you many. You ignore them and keep asking. So I have to conclude that either you are too stupid to read and comprehend, or you are avoiding acknowledging them. Which is it? As far as "doing something about waste", how would one do that? People speak up all the time about waste and only get someone like you, that ignores the complaint. If I had the power you can bet your ass I'd do something about it.
Why, I believe that is a lie. You cant provide even one specific example can only mean government waste is minimal. If you knew of actual instances of waste you could post them here and fellow forum participants could notify various media outlets to alert them to the need for investigation by the appropriate entities.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Why, I believe that is a lie. You cant provide even one specific example can only mean government waste is minimal. If you knew of actual instances of waste you could post them here and fellow forum participants could notify various media outlets to alert them to the need for investigation by the appropriate entities.
Juan, they're reported daily by news sources/citizens and nothing is done. Are you playing stupid or are you really that dumb? It's becomming hard to tell. Let me help you. Google government waste. You do know how to do that don't you?
quote:
Finally, a concrete example. All Obama family members should be deported immediately to prevent even the allegation of preferential treatment. Between her, and the 20,000,000 other foreign nationals living here, we could cut the fedgov budget 6%. Another 30-40% and we can have a balanced budget.

Sounds good to me. As usual you leave out the part you don't like. I said MULTIPLY THIS EXAMPLE BY THE THOUSANDS. She is not just one case. You ask for examples. Did you google yet?
•Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.[6]
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Finally, a concrete example. All Obama family members should be deported immediately to prevent even the allegation of preferential treatment. Between her, and the 20,000,000 other foreign nationals living here, we could cut the fedgov budget 6%. Another 30-40% and we can have a balanced budget.

Sounds good to me. As usual you leave out the part you don't like. I said MULTIPLY THIS EXAMPLE BY THE THOUSANDS. She is not just one case. You ask for examples. Did you google yet?


WTP???? I said 20,000,000 foreigners which should be about $200billion dollars in fedgov aid.
quote:
The rich pay all the taxes so they therefore are the primary beneficiary of any cuts in federal income tax rates. Isnt that true?

quote:
The rich pay all the taxes so they therefore are the primary beneficiary of any cuts in federal income tax rates. Isnt that true?

They don't pay all the taxes, just most of them. One more time r e a l s l o w.
The tax cuts were across the board. It would have been a good move if the leaders at the time had not spent money like drunken sailors at a *****house.
Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes! Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes! The top tax rate is currently 35%. That does not include property tax, state and local tax. I am not rich but don't hate the rich. What the he11 is your problem with someone keeping what they earned?



5
Married couple earning $40k would have seen their taxes increase less than $100. Couple earning $1million would add $40,000.

The time for paying for the deficit spending of the last 50 years has arrived. The people that pay all the taxes are going to have to pay more, there is no money to take from the middle class. Why is that hard to grasp????
quote:
Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes! Letting the tax cuts expire would have increased everyones taxes!


This may only be a technicality, but it's worth pointing out. Letting the tax cuts expire would simply be allowing them to do what they were designed to do. Making them permanent when they were proposed would have required the Senate to have the 60 seat filibuster proof majority, which it did not have. Any proposals by the current Congress should be treated as new legislation. The old legislation called for a tax increase in 2010.

quote:
What the he11 is your problem with someone keeping what they earned?


Absolutely nothing. The 16th Amendment created the proverbial slippery slope that has allowed Congress to confiscate the fruits of our labor. So I agree, we should be able to keep our money. Now, how do you propose we do that and meet our obligations?

quote:
The time for paying for the deficit spending of the last 50 years has arrived. The people that pay all the taxes are going to have to pay more, there is no money to take from the middle class. Why is that hard to grasp???


While I'm opposed to income taxation because it is legalized theft, I concede that as a country we seem to be fine with it. I also concede that the math simply doesn't work for those who claim we can tax less and still cover our obligations. Any tax cuts should still be coupled with massive spending cuts.

What we've essentially done it let one generation run up a huge credit card bill and stiff the next generation with paying for it. The problem is that we're not requiring those who ran up the bill to give up any of the stuff it bought.
quote:
Married couple earning $40k would have seen their taxes increase less than $100. Couple earning $1million would add $40,000.

Let the couple earning one million keep their forty grand. Taxes are high enough! Cut spending. Cut out all but the most basic social spending. There's government housing, transportation and you can even get a government cell phone.
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.
No one will tolerate the cuts necessary to balance the budget, or even get close. The TEA party cabal is not willing to compromise their Medicare Part D entitlement much less the limitation of their primary care. This all talk, and there will be no changes. Pols have to get elected, which means earmarks have to continue and favor have to be repaid. Look back at news reports from the 1980s and you will see exactly the same rhetoric. Everything new is old, again.
quote:
No one will tolerate the cuts necessary to balance the budget, or even get close. The TEA party cabal is not willing to compromise their Medicare Part D entitlement much less the limitation of their primary care. This all talk, and there will be no changes. Pols have to get elected, which means earmarks have to continue and favor have to be repaid. Look back at news reports from the 1980s and you will see exactly the same rhetoric. Everything new is old, again.


I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but that doesn't address the question I've asked you. You have come out in favor of tax increases, or at least suggested that they might be necessary:

quote:
The time for paying for the deficit spending of the last 50 years has arrived. The people that pay all the taxes are going to have to pay more, there is no money to take from the middle class. Why is that hard to grasp???


Is your defense of this that spending habits can't be changed, therefore we should tax to cover the spending? If it's impossible to cut spending, why isn't it impossible to raise taxes? Should we take the position that change is hard, therefore we should never consider it and stay the course of economic ruin?
quote:
If it's impossible to cut spending, why isn't it impossible to raise taxes?


I think theres a logic disconnect in there. The complete economic collapse of the USA is a foregone conclusion at this point. There will be no significant reform of spending nor taxation until the collapse has become a reality, much like the MBS/CDS induced depression which we now endure. I find it humorous that people get so excited about things that they have no control over, or even the slightest impact on.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:

I should have been more specific, I suppose. The Gov't cannot create a "non-politician" job out of thin air without creating a need out of thin air.

Postal Jobs - Private sector does it much better, they just can't compete with a service that loses money

National Park Service - Un-necessary but I do like the Parks.

Air Traffic Controllers - Replaced by Reagan when they went on strike. Replaced by CONTRACTORS for the most part, with GOVT officials to oversee them.

NASA - everything produced by private companies. GOVT workers do not turn a wrench, oversight only.

Yes we can hire millions of contractors to produce something mandated by the GOVT and hire thousands of GOVT employees to oversee. Almost all are unnecessary.

NASA working for DOD has evolved, not originally intended. Just another GOVT program that could not be shut down after its' goal was accomplished. Not against NASA, just a good example. Once a program starts, it never ends. It may have highs and lows in funding but it never ends.

GOVT produces nothing, zilch (except more worthless paper and coin money). Services, yes, zillions of un-necessary services. Private sectors do it better, period.


Most of US jobs dont produce anything, as we are a service economy.

No private company will do the constitutionally mandated USPO job for a fixed unit cost as we have today.

I am going to go ahead and assume that you have no idea what NASA, in HSV or elsewhere, actually does.

Obviously, as demonstrated in this forum repeatedly, we need a better public education system.


As to the US manufacturing section, WRONG AGAIN!

"According to the latest United Nations Statistics data (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp) the United States is the largest manufacturing nation, with an output of approximately $1.83 Trillion. This is followed by China at $1.79T, with these two nations far outstripping any other nations (Japan $1.05T, Germany $767B and Italy $381B). The rate of growth in manufacturing in China far outstrips that of the US, with its manufacturing industry growing more than an order of magnitude in the last two decades, during which the US has not even doubled its output.

According to the Department of Labor (sourcing the United Nations United Nations, National Accounts Main Aggregates Database, http://unstats.un.org/) citing 2005 data the U.S. accounts for 20.6% of the worlds manufacturing nearly 1.5 times that of the 2nd largest (Japan 13.3%) and over twice 3rd largest (Germany 8.2%). The aggregate combination of the EU-15 This link has an explanation of the calculation methods and links to the charts showing the worlds top manufactures: http://www.dol.gov/asp/media/r...xa_manufacturing.htm"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What...ndustry_in_the_world
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by TAXEDENOUGH:
I know a fellow that has turned down 3 jobs because he had benefits left. 99 weeks?. How long is long enough?


i'm sure anyone would turn down job offer's for that huge $250 weekly unemployment check they get here in Alabama, i mean hey, they can sure live fat on that can't they?


They do it everyday. I've personally seen it myself.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Millionaire's Private Space Capsule Launches on Maiden Voyage

Accomplished by a millionaire, not a billionaire, not a trillionaire, not a gazillionaire. Private companies operate with greater efficiency, period.


FOunder Elon Musk says he's broke, getting by on $200,000 per month. As founder of Paypal and Tesla, his fortune is all on paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06...siness/22sorkin.html
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Elin, don't confuse him with the truth, facts, and figures. He will just get angry and attack you personally, call you a liar, question your education, integrity, and lack of ability to do anything about it, and demand video proof and tape recordings, etc. to back up anything you say.


Old dog juan hunt, like his previous incarnations on this forum, gets nasty and personal when confronted with the facts. I don't post for him so much as for those he might misinform.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.


Overall, the debt commission had many good suggestions. They just didn't go far enough.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.


Overall, the debt commission had many good suggestions. They just didn't go far enough.


Balancing the budget has nothing to do with the outstanding debt, so calling the group a debt commission is not factual. Within 5-7 years, payments to service the debt will be the largest component of the fedgov budget, topping $700billion. A plan that does not include paying down at least 10% of the debt per year is not progress.
While I agree with you that we must try and pay some (10% would be a great target) of this debt each year, if we are ever to get out of this mess, I think trying to put al of the pressure on 3% of the people is ridiculous. EVERYONE should contribute, and it should be fairly distributed. Let's talk about a flat tax. Even the WH is agreeing that by not going with the Reps current recommendations it could lead us further into the downward sprial we have found ourselves.

Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told reporters that if the measure isn't passed soon, it will "materially increase the risk the economy would stall out and we would have a double-dip" recession. That put the White House in the unusual position of warning its own party's lawmakers they could be to blame for calamitous consequences if they go against the president.Socialism and redistribution of weatlh will not work in our type of society, nor any type of society, where individuals need to be motivated in order to create and sustain prosperity.
If the budget of the fedgov was cut 50%, we would still not have a balanced budget this year. The American people will not tolerate such a drastic cut. You have to tax the people that have the money, there is no more to get from the middle class folks. Thats the reality, and yes it is unfair, but life is generally unfair, but the wealthiest 10% of Americans will just have to suck it up and move on.
No they should not just "suck it up and move on". We got in this mess by the large number of government handouts we have doled out over the years.
We have known SS will go belly up, there was no way to sustain it.
Right now is the time to say, no more SS. If you are younger than 50 years old, make other plans, cause it is not going to happen. Take your SS contribution and put it somewhere to make money for yourself, and require people to save for their retirement.
Stop bailing out all of these companies and their unions. Don't let them make promises they cannot fulfill.
Institute a fair tax plan that captures the taxes when the money is spent, not when it is made. This will allow us to tax those who are working in cash only businesses (prostitutes, drug dealers, used car dealers, etc) and capture what is essentially lost revenue.
Stop giving huge donations to other countries, most of which could care less for us. Help those of us at home first.
Encourage civic based organizations to help the needy (Salvation Army, etc) and continue to give tax credit for those donations.
Legalize pot and stop this ridiculous drug war. Freeing up much of the prison space, and effectively ending the border war with Mexican drug lords.
Continue Medicare and Medicaid for those who need it, but have an honest assessment of the individuals and see if they are truly capable of doing for themselvs. Have them work in community service positions in order to provide something back to the community. Make people respect what you give them, and let them think they are earning it.
The government has created this class ennvy that most of the liberal media is so obsessed with. They want you to believe that the rich eat caviar and sip wine while laughing at those in need. I am here to tell you that is not the truth.
Most of us, that you will consider "rich", struggle with bills, and college tuitions, and self employment issues such as health insurance each and every day. I pay plenty of taxes, and give plenty to charity. At some point and time you just throw up your hands and say it is not worth it any more. Why work and save for your retirement, when you know they plan to take it away and give it to someone else. It is a two edged sword. Like some have said before, you can sit idly by while they do it, but when they come for "yours" who will speak for you at that time? And don't worry, they will come for yours as well, as more and more people realize that there is no need to continue to try and do what is best for their family, the coffers get smaller and they have to go elsewhere to find the money to fund some of their ridiculous prjects.
teyates & ferrell-

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you, but your suggestions aren't going to happen. They level of cuts needed includes too many things that politicians won't touch, and most voters don't want them to. It's already been pointed out, but servicing the debt alone is becoming a growing portion of the budget - a portion that can't just be "cut." This problem is not as easy to solve as some are making it out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
This problem is not as easy to solve as some are making it out to be.


Well I'd hate to be one to make it out solving the budget problem as "easy"...but I was somewhat astounded at recent CBO numbers when they ran a budget with the Bush tax cuts in place. It is the CBO...and how accurate are they? Well I don't know, but the folks at REASON magazine seemed comfortable enough in quoting from the report.

I posted on that article in another thread...they call it the 19% solution.

dolemitejb has posted on this fact of tax revenue historically being no more than 19% of GDP regarless of what the tax rates are.

Taking that into account, projecting 19% GDP tax revenue, the CBO came up with a 10 year budget that would be balanced by 2020.

What drastic cuts and services would we lose? Not much.

The recomendation was a measley 3.6% cut in the budget...approx $129 billion out of approx $4 plus Trillion annual budgets.

3.6%...and to quote from the article:

quote:
A balanced budget in 2020 based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending.


3.6% cuts in expected increases in spending.

Giving the apocalyptic hyberbole that politicains and special interest groups resort to when any sort of cut is duscussed, this really needs to be studied more.

3.6% and yet I've heard barely a peep about it in the news.

Now this doesnn't address our near $14 trillion debt...but a balanced budget has to be a step in the right direction.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
No they should not just "suck it up and move on". We got in this mess by the large number of government handouts we have doled out over the years.
We have known SS will go belly up, there was no way to sustain it.
Right now is the time to say, no more SS. If you are younger than 50 years old, make other plans, cause it is not going to happen. Take your SS contribution and put it somewhere to make money for yourself, and require people to save for their retirement.
Stop bailing out all of these companies and their unions. Don't let them make promises they cannot fulfill.
Institute a fair tax plan that captures the taxes when the money is spent, not when it is made. This will allow us to tax those who are working in cash only businesses (prostitutes, drug dealers, used car dealers, etc) and capture what is essentially lost revenue.
Stop giving huge donations to other countries, most of which could care less for us. Help those of us at home first.
Encourage civic based organizations to help the needy (Salvation Army, etc) and continue to give tax credit for those donations.
Legalize pot and stop this ridiculous drug war. Freeing up much of the prison space, and effectively ending the border war with Mexican drug lords.
Continue Medicare and Medicaid for those who need it, but have an honest assessment of the individuals and see if they are truly capable of doing for themselvs. Have them work in community service positions in order to provide something back to the community. Make people respect what you give them, and let them think they are earning it.
The government has created this class ennvy that most of the liberal media is so obsessed with. They want you to believe that the rich eat caviar and sip wine while laughing at those in need. I am here to tell you that is not the truth.
Most of us, that you will consider "rich", struggle with bills, and college tuitions, and self employment issues such as health insurance each and every day. I pay plenty of taxes, and give plenty to charity. At some point and time you just throw up your hands and say it is not worth it any more. Why work and save for your retirement, when you know they plan to take it away and give it to someone else. It is a two edged sword. Like some have said before, you can sit idly by while they do it, but when they come for "yours" who will speak for you at that time? And don't worry, they will come for yours as well, as more and more people realize that there is no need to continue to try and do what is best for their family, the coffers get smaller and they have to go elsewhere to find the money to fund some of their ridiculous prjects.


Very good post!
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Cut out all welfare spending, cut it 100%. Done. After medical care for the uninsured, that is less than $200billion. You only need to find $1500billion more in cuts.


I don't understand where you keep going with this. I understand that no single cut is going to get the budget under control. Is your point that since no single cut can solve our problems that we shouldn't make any cuts? Additionally, you need to explain what you mean by "welfare." Many things are deemed "welfare," but there is no singular welfare budget. Defense and social security should be on the table as well. What we cannot do is continue to spend as we have in the past and pretend that we can tax our way to simultaneously having a balanced budget and thriving economy.


Well said dolemite. It's a multitude of spending cuts and every single American will have to share in the pain.


Overall, the debt commission had many good suggestions. They just didn't go far enough.


Balancing the budget has nothing to do with the outstanding debt, so calling the group a debt commission is not factual. Within 5-7 years, payments to service the debt will be the largest component of the fedgov budget, topping $700billion. A plan that does not include paying down at least 10% of the debt per year is not progress.


Of course, it does. The budget contains not only interest that must be paid on treasury bills, notes and bonds, but the principal on those same instruments that mature during the fiscal year. Continue to retire treasury instruments, without issuing more and the national debt decreases.

I've posted this about four times before. Either, you missed them, or your long term memory is failing. I'm certain you wouldn't post an untruth.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
No they should not just "suck it up and move on". We got in this mess by the large number of government handouts we have doled out over the years.


Don't forget that a large part of this mess was caused by greedy Wall Street bankers who bundled and sold risky loans. The foreclosure crisis is a large part of the recession picture, because when these homeowners lost their jobs, they sure couldn't keep up the payments on their over-priced mortgages.

http://www.masslive.com/busine...ers_blame_homeo.html

Clueless Wall Street bankers blame homeowners for foreclosure mess

quote:
Two headlines grabbed my attention online late this week. The first was an MSNBC.com story entitled “Wall St. pins foreclosure fiasco on homeowners.” The second one, on Boston.com, was “Banks seize 288K homes in Q3, but challenges await.”

In the first article two investment bankers whine that if only homeowners had kept paying their mortgages, there would be no problem. The second article bears the news that in the third quarter, more homes were foreclosed on than in any other three-month period since the housing market meltdown began in 2006. But, according to the Wall Streeters, it is all the fault of those pesky non-mortgage paying homeowners.

Well, having read The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis and A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers by Lawrence G. McDonald and Patrick Robinson, I have to ask the investment bankers how they have to gall to put the sole blame homeowners when:

Huge mortgage companies evolved over the past 10 to 15 years that operated with little or no concern for the quality of their loans. Loans with zero money down, no documentation required and adjustable rates that would eventually mean the mortgage would be seriously out of reach for the homebuyer were offered to millions of people in the sub prime market. Ginormous bonuses were given out to loan officers for closing ever-higher volumes of loans, in effect, rewarding for quantity, not quality. And since the loans were all being sold off to others higher up in the financial food chain, the originators didn’t actually have to worry because the loans weren’t being held in their own portfolio.

This was all done on the hugely faulty premise that the housing market would always go straight up and the homebuyers would quickly build up equity. When the time came for their mortgages to adjust they would be able to refinance to an affordable fixed rate or sell the house and buy a bigger, better one with the equity they amassed in just a few years. Or so they were told. In numerous documented cases, loan officers falsified the borrower’s income and other information on loan documents. Yet Wall Street banks were anxious to buy up these mortgage firms, themselves betting that the housing market would just go up and up forever.

The big investment banks bundled up the faulty mortgages and sold them to investors around the globe. Wanting their share of the giant amounts of money flowing through the sub prime mortgage markets, Wall Street firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to name just two of the many, many guilty parties, bought oodles and oodles of mortgages and then resold them around the world. Then they used credit default swaps to hedge against the possibility that these now-securitized sub prime mortgages would go south, making what amounts to no more than a Vegas-style bet. As the mortgage companies sold deeper and deeper into the sub prime market and the mortgages got riskier and riskier, Wall Street bankers collected huge bonus checks and shut their ears to all efforts by their risk management folks to alert them of the impending disaster....

The big banks have not managed to develop an efficient process for managing the tidal wave of foreclosures. According to the MSNBC.com article, in a recent letter to federal authorities, California lawmakers presented details about thousands of homeowners in California who have been the victims of foreclosures that could have been avoided if only the banks hadn’t routinely misplaced requested documents, failed to respond in a timely manner and sent mixed signals about what is required to avoid foreclosures. And if it’s happening in California, we can be assured it’s happening in other states too, which has led to the temporary halting of foreclosures in the wake of news that bank officials were signing tens of thousands of foreclosure documents without even reading them.

Now, were there some homebuyers who knowingly committed mortgage fraud? Sure there were. But they are hugely outnumbered by the folks who wanted a piece of the American dream – a home of their own – and believed the lies they were told by mortgage brokers about how they never needed to worry about what would happen when their adjustable mortgage actually adjusted because it would be no problem. And there are also hundreds of thousands of homeowners who have watched the value of their homes plummet because of high rates of foreclosures in their cities and towns....

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×