Blaming politicians is popular only to those who don't understand that someone elected them.

Or if they believe that it's other people's fault for electing the wrong people.



And I think it's very telling that someone would argue about spending for the "war on poverty", social security, etc. and not even mention defense spending.

If someone only wants to cut programs they disagree with, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As I said earlier, people get what they asked for. Hope they're happy.

Carry on.

while I agree one should not talk of cuts in welfare programs and ignore defense spending, I personally I don't want cuts in either.  I agree defense spending should also be trimmed of waste, fraud and abuse.  but cutting the spending will also hurt the economy and affect jobs.

One could also target government research grants (including medical research and subsidies, student education grants, etc), infrastructure (which would include interstate roads, trains, air traffic, commerce and transportation on rivers and national waterways and oceans, etc), national prison system, national parks...

the list could go on and on about what's fair game to target for cuts.  it's not fair to target defense OR welfare services without considering ALL government services.  ANY of them being cut WILL affect the economy both localized and on a national and even world level.  ANY of them will affect individual HUMAN LIVES.

drewfx1


Blaming politicians is popular only to those who don't understand that someone elected them.

Or if they believe that it's other people's fault for electing the wrong people.



And I think it's very telling that someone would argue about spending for the "war on poverty", social security, etc. and not even mention defense spending.

If someone only wants to cut programs they disagree with, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As I said earlier, people get what they asked for. Hope they're happy.

Carry on.

No argument here.  Most of it is on us--not all of it though.  We can hardly know what kind of secret deals have have been made over the years.  I didn't care for the way the government did the bailouts for the banks and car companies.  They should have issued vouchers to mortgage holders rather than giving the money directly to the bank CEO's.  At least that way, people could have made a few mortgage payments and the money STILL gets to the bank.  We might have fewer foreclosures now, if they'd have done something like that. 

The Cars For Clunkers was a reasonably good attempt to do something like that--trouble with that program was too many restrictions.  I couldn't qualify, because my '99 Subaru doesn't get bad enough MPG's.  They should have just made the minimum 10% improvement in MPG's.

There may also be an Al Qaeda component.  Bin Laden was obsessed with our financial systems.  That's why he attacked the WTC twice.  He got us to spend billions on wars we could ill afford. 

Thanks for putting up with my rant. 

Old55

The Cars For Clunkers was a reasonably good attempt to do something like that--trouble with that program was too many restrictions.  I couldn't qualify, because my '99 Subaru doesn't get bad enough MPG's.

Same here. My '98 Chevy Lumina got too high gas mileage to qualify. And they went by sticker, not actual mileage.

Bin Laden was obsessed with our financial systems.  That's why he attacked the WTC twice.

Huh. I always thought he did it because there were FBI offices there. That whole thing was just weird. I still don't understand why they did it so early in the morning before the building filled up with people? There's flights coming and going every 15 minutes 24/7. Good thing it worked out that way, but you would think with all the planning that went in to that, he would have maximized his opportunity.

no offense taken mike and FWIW I agree with you there.  I would prefer we take a much more defensive stance in our military than the offensive one we (our leaders whom we elected) have chosen over the last several years.

and just to re-iterate, I don't think you're doing this either, but I agree with Jan - it's not the fault of the service men and women.  the faults lie much further up the food chain.  I have nothing but pride and respect for our uniformed brothers and sisters.

I never said to shut down SS & MC... I did say they need cuts...and as was pointed out, simply eliminating the waste, fraud, double billing and unqualified from them would go a long way towards saving these programs. They need to be restructured so they they are run from a business POV and if that means reducing the payouts for a few years to get them in the black again, then it needs to be done.

I think we all agree that they can not and will not be able to continue as they have been managed, into the future.

I did say we can and should eliminate the programs and departments that have failed to produce the intended benefits to society.  A look at the constitution, and comparing the mission of a federal department to the original intent would help to determine what needs to go and what can stay.

the federal government's constitutional authority is to provide for the common defense (Dept of Defense),  to regulate interstate commerce (Commerce Dept)  ...very few other things are mandated.

The dept of education, revenue, justice, interior, agriculture, labor, health & humans services, housing & urban development, transportation, energy, veterans affairs, homeland security, and state, are all regulating areas that should be reviewed, and downsized drastically, turned over to the states (10th amendment of the constitution) or simply done away with all together.

I think also that we could and should cut the so called "defense budget" easily by 1/3 or more. We have no business trying to "democratize" nations around the world or attempting to police the world. We should shut down all 3 wars, and close the majority of our bases in the more than 100 countries where we currently maintain bases. My only exception to this would be a nation that wants us there... then we would bill them for our services and at a price that allows the USA to make a profit. Otherwise... hire your own army to protect you.


The problem we have now..... the markets are up today on hopes of a THIRD round of qualitative easing by the federal reserve. Basically, they plan to print more money to buy the debt. (US Treasuries) That will cause inflation, dollar values down, prices up, until it runs out...just like QE1&2 ran out and they had to pump more inflated money in to keep the house of cards propped up... and something just bumped the table..... so now... we're gonna double down and throw MORE money at the problem.....?

Until we make the cuts to the biggest part of the budget... the mandated stuff like SS, MC, and other entitlement programs we will simply continue to build the house of cards high and higher, and eventually when, (not if) it falls it will be a bigger mess then anything we have happening now.

Do I think many if not most of the entitlement programs need to go? Absolutely? Should they go today? NO, I agree we can not do that. It would cause to big of a disruption to our society.

We need jobs to return. To do that.....

We do need to change our policy to encourage business to come back to America. One of the fastest ways to do that is by eliminating the IRS (as we know it today) and the current tax system. A flat, fair tax, and remove corporate income tax totally. Corporations do not pay the tax anyway, they pass it to the customers...I know, because I own a company and that's EXACTLY what I do. My company tax every year is....ZERO dollars. I'm a small company and I know how to get this done.

Remove the regulation on business and farms. Tell the tree huggers to go to china and hug trees. We need to drill for oil & gas, dig coal, and too bad for the Snail Darter fish, we're gonna use the water for our farms and cities.....

Doing just those 2 things.... rework the tax code and remove regulations that are killing business, would allow businesses to do what they need to do to get the jobs numbers going in the right direction and put people back to work.

No one I know wants to set around collecting unemployment when they have skills to do a job. If government gets out of the way, we, the small businesses in America will do what we do, which is hire people and make money and reinvest that money in the businesses and ultimately, our country and it's future.

If you understand the principle of double taxation you will understand that statement. I refuse to pay taxes twice on the same dollar. I'm required to pay it once, and I do.... but not twice.

edit to explain... this was meant to be addressed to Herb... but I see Randy also commented... I'll just leave it as I addressed to Herb with the confidence that Randy will see how it applies to the conversation as a whole.

Oh I understand... I understand you know the score, and that you have the ability to do what's best for you and yours... and that makes perfect sense to me.

Not only is that your right... I might abstractly suggest it is your obligation as a good free market citizen.

But, I might also suggest that since you have so effectively found your niche that you may excuse yourself from criticizing those who haven't acquired as many effective life skills.

You seem like a winner in the game of life... but you also seem to frequently suggest that you are getting the short end of bargain.




all the best,
mike

links?

I've learned to lean with the wind.

:-)

Guitarhacker


Revelation = Bible = religion=  not supposed to discuss

I believe we are close.

You're not supposed to discuss politics either, but that ain't stopping ya...

Guitarhacker


I refer back to the Constitution of the United States and in particular the 10th Amendment which simply and plainly states the following: 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In my reading and understanding, it is the State's responsibility to regulate or not regulate business inside it's borders, and that would include environmental issues among many, many others.

You're missing an important piece - it doesn't matter what your reading and understanding is, because the Constitution expressly grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases involving the Federal government. So if the Supreme Court says something, that's what the Constitution means, period, like it or not. If you don't accept that, it means you don't accept the Constitution.

If you, or any of us, dislikes or disagrees with any of the Supreme Court's many questionable decisions, our options are limited to changing the laws in question (where possible), amending the Constitution, or just taking advantage of our 1st amendment "right to complain".

Some people want to replace SC Justices with ones more to their liking and have them reinterpret the law. But if new Justices just wantonly overturned prior decisions, it would destroy the entire concept of judicial precedent and undermine respect for the judiciary and the rule of law.

So in the real world, we are forced to accept some Constitutional interpretations we surely disagree with as a cost of living in a diverse but civil society that values the rule of law over anarchy.

Quite a few of the states say that the 10th amendment applies and are suing the Federal government in court to assert their rights.

Not my opinion, a fact.


Sorry... this thread is getting too far off course.... and as Beagle said... too personal...... so it's time to close it. See you in sunnier pastures.

Herb, before you go could you answer my question about the scenerio I described? I don't think your mention of the 10th amendment and to date, unsuccessful lawsuits regarding it are an answer.

Just kidding Herb. I know you can't answer the question. That's my point about making statements about eliminating agencies like the EPA. They are all there for a good reason. The people of the country wanted them, and our elected officials created them. They were created to help those that couldn't defend themselves against greedy careless corporations.

Randy

I don't want anyone here to think I'm "after" anyone here because I disagree with some of the points they've tried to make.

Herb sent me a PM, which will remain private, but he respectfully answered my question. I respect that. I also respect Herb as a father, musician and businessman. I told him so privately and am doing so publically.

Bub, yes...some of us do have some pull around here. Upon your 1 year anniversary in Oct, you will under go a review by the Council Of Pullers, of which there are several members. Your "pull" status will be scrutinized by the finest minds of this forum. Obviously, I'm not on the council, but good luck.

Randy