Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Republican Spending Cuts

  1. #1

    Default Republican Spending Cuts

    We all remember Econ 101, right? If you have a depression or a recession, the way out of it is for the federal government to hire and pay lots of people to stimulate the economy. We are in a very serious recession, it could have become a depression, it still could. So why now of all times would Republicans want to cut federal spending, cut federal programs, cut federal employment? To be sure, we could balance the budget, probably rather easily, actually, by ending two wars we never needed and raising tax rates on the rich to what they were under President Clinton. But no, that would be too easy, they say, we must cut employment now, in a slow recovery from a serious recession. Doesn't this sound just a little fishy to you? A little suspicious? Its almost as if they want the economy to tank. Why would anyone possibly want that with a Presidential election two years away? This strategy is a sick, evil, anti patriotic,vicious anti American strategy, its the grossest, most evil politics you ever see, destroying the economy, destroying peoples' lives just for political advantage. It is a monument to evil politics.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kapalama Heights.
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it has been my experience that to demonize those who disagree with me is not the way to help them see my side. Rather than throw words like "evil" and "vicious" around, perhaps it might be more productive to ask people why they might support such an approach?

    I'm mostly with you: while I think that certain federal programs need to be bolstered in times of economic stress, I also think the federal government is far too large, expensive, and invasive. There are many needs the federal government is forced to deal with because state governments find it easier to pass the burden to the nation, rather than to deal with things where they might more effectively be handled.

    I'm no economist, but my feeling is that cutting federal expenses so that states and the private citizenry have more money to work with is a better way to deal with social issues. Perhaps I am wrong, but does that make me evil, or does that just make me wrong?
    But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
    GrouchyTeacher.com

  3. #3

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    I apologize for getting carried away and flailing away with emotional words. You are right. I agree that the gvt. is too intrusive, we see Republicans only want it to be even moreso with their attention to restricting a woman's right to choice even further with three bills in the House, which was supposedly going to tackle the unemployment problem. Eliminating gvt. intrusiveness could be done without destroying a lot of jobs, spying on peoples' e mail is a lot different from funding infrastructure repairs, fondling air passengers privates is a lot different from preventing epidemics. Note that the EPA is to suffer especially heavy cuts, that would be to benefit polluters/campaign contributors at the expense of the precious unborn and those who will come down with diseases our overtaxed medical system will have to deal with. It may not be evil, it may not be vicious. It certainly is shortsighted and wrong. Dare I say cruel?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by scrivener View Post
    I also think the federal government is far too large, expensive, and invasive.?

    Scriv, I've assked you this in the past and you refuse to answer. What programs are you going to cut? The big three programs in the Federal government which take up the majority of spending are the military, social security, and medicare. You can cut some other other minor programs but that is like pi$$ing in the ocean as far as significnt cuts to the budget. So which of the "big three" are you going to cut? It is one thing to complain about Federal spending but it is whole nother thing to come up with a viable program. Let's see if you will answer this time.

    The Rethug spending cuts are of little consequence in making big cuts in Federal spending. The proposed cuts are nothing more than punitive - like putting lipstick on a pig.
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  5. #5

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Thinking about it, risking throwing the country into a depression, or cutting off a recovery from a recession, does qualify as reckless and irresponsible and unbelievably selfish. Too bad its what the people voted for. Live and learn. Or maybe its live and suffer and never learn anything.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kihei -currently away at school in NY
    Posts
    734

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Hmmmm....... Here's my take on the "big 3". I'd first cut military. Don't believe in war and certainly not big weapons. I think the recent protests in Egypt should be held up as an example to all. At least those who started it. Notice that they did not need to go in with guns blazing to make their point. Secondly, I'd cut medicare. I believe western "medicine" has gotten so far out of control that in many respects they are doing more harm than good. Then I would put some of the excess that would result from deeply slashing the first two of the big 3 into social security. We need to honor our elderly and afford them a comfortable existence.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Thanks AL, it takes mangos to put your principles out there, something that is sorely lacking in some quarters.

    You touch on some interesting topics that merit reasonable discussion. I think it is obvious that the military is the bloated pig in the equation. But let's talk about Medicare. Uaifi and I are Medicare recipients. We each pay about $100 per month for a bit less than Cadilac service (more like Honda or Toyota service - affordable but yet dependable and reliable) I would NOT be willing to have my services cut, but I would be willing to pay more, maybe twice as much. But I know some elderly that are having trouble even paying the $100. The reason is that they are using SocSec as their ONLY retirement benefit. When SocSec was adopted back in the '30's it was intended to be a supplemental retirement income system. Today, retirees fail to plan for their retirement future and consequently depend soley on SocSec for their retirement income. It is a conundrum!

    Anyway, I think you have given this some thought and your ideas certainly merit serious discussion.
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kihei -currently away at school in NY
    Posts
    734

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    Thanks AL, it takes mangos to put your principles out there, something that is sorely lacking in some quarters.

    You touch on some interesting topics that merit reasonable discussion. I think it is obvious that the military is the bloated pig in the equation. But let's talk about Medicare. Uaifi and I are Medicare recipients. We each pay about $100 per month for a bit less than Cadilac service (more like Honda or Toyota service - affordable but yet dependable and reliable) I would NOT be willing to have my services cut, but I would be willing to pay more, maybe twice as much. But I know some elderly that are having trouble even paying the $100. The reason is that they are using SocSec as their ONLY retirement benefit. When SocSec was adopted back in the '30's it was intended to be a supplemental retirement income system. Today, retirees fail to plan for their retirement future and consequently depend soley on SocSec for their retirement income. It is a conundrum!

    Anyway, I think you have given this some thought and your ideas certainly merit serious discussion.
    Why thank you. I pride myself on standing on my principles. Don't really have much else.

    My problem with medicare is really a much deeper problem with the "philosophy" of western medicine. I realize that I view the system from outside the box - it is the only way I know how. I have see far too many people, young, old and everywhere in-between be over tested, over procedured and over medicated. In my dream world of greatly reducing medicare (notice I said dream world) does not mean raising the cost for retirees. In fact, any cost to the retiree should be eliminated. Seniors can't afford the drugs?? Why are they on drugs? It is a vicious cycle. The general mindset is "well, I agree with you, but in my case I really need mine."

    Take something simple, say, a headache. What do you (the general you, not you personally) do for it? I would look at why I had a headache, first and foremost. Then try to treat the cause, not the symptom. Treating the cause can almost always be remedied through natural means. But popping a pill is easier, isn't it? But popping the pill causes unforeseen side effects. So you go to the doctor, who gives you another pill to get rid of the symptom. But that pill quietly destroys an organ. Now you have to have surgery. Because you don't have said organ, now you have to take another pill to do the job of the organ. But you get side effects from that pill which affects organ B. So now you have to take two pills to live. But that pill has even more side effects and......well, you get the picture. Or maybe not...........

    Should Social Security be the only income? Probably not. And I guess if I'm going to have a dream world of people turning against the "health machine" that runs our economy, then they'd also have the sense to save for retirement

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Angry Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    The alleged Republicans want to cut spending?

    War is VERY expensive! We have two ongoing, and I'm not sure what for.

    Daily, our 'boys' (young men and women) come back with permanent life-altering disabilities; they gave up a chance at a 'normal' life to be patriotic - so what does our government do?

    It introduces a bill to cut back veterans' benefits and care.

    "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2011 — America’s oldest and largest major combat veterans’ organization announced it will do everything within its power to defeat a plan introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to cut $4.5 billion from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    On her website, the three-term congresswoman lists more than $400 billion in suggestions to cut federal spending. The VA suggestion would cap increases to VA healthcare spending, and reduce disability compensation to account for Social Security Disability Insurance payments — in other words, an offset. She says her plan is intended to generate discussion."

    Or perhaps to generate disgust?

    Sure. Enlist our citizens to fight in the politicians' wars with false promises, then afterward abandon your promises, and abandon your disabled veterans.

    We are merely cannon fodder, after all is said and done.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Republicans are NOT planning on cutting approximately $7 BILLION in subsidies to the highly profitable oil companies that have now given us the highest gas prices in history. They ARE planning on cutting the EPA. What can I say about people who would vote for this, I mean the Americans who voted to put these people in office. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by acousticlady View Post
    ...............Why are they on drugs? It is a vicious cycle.
    AL, excellent points, all of them. This POV is sure not to make friends in some quarters, but you are being upfront. I generally agree with you. I try to avoid trips to the doctor by gettiing lots of hard exercize and eating a healthy, solid diet. I have dropped 40 pounds since last July and reduced my reliance on statins by 50%. In another 6 months I should be at my weight goal and off statins completely.

    The general mindset is "well, I agree with you, but in my case I really need mine."
    Ain't that the truth! Read what a poster wrote immediately after yours!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaonohi View Post
    Daily, our 'boys' (young men and women) come back with permanent life-altering disabilities; they gave up a chance at a 'normal' life to be patriotic - so what does our government do?.
    K, you appear to agree with many Tea Bagger principles, they say it is not the government's responsibility. You cannot have it both ways. And this is where the wheels fall off the Bagger cart, they want it both ways. Do you want a big Federal beaucracy to fund epensive programs like Veteran's Affairs or do you want to compalin about governement spending?

    And I do not agree that fighting in an unjust war is "patriotic." You should have been patriotic and said, "hot damn, Viet Nam, hell no, I won't go!"

    Or are these just more statements to bait, as you admitted in the gun thread? I thought you wanted sincere and intelligent debate on these difficult subjects, but I was apparently wrong. Fool me once, your fault, fool me twice, my fault.

    K, I have lost all confidence in your sincereity.
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  12. #12

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Just a look at the decisions our system is making: the $7 billion tax payer funded subsidy to already hugely profitable oil companies will not be cut, but here in San Diego the school board is firing 500 teachers for lack of money. Probably similar numbers in districts around the country. These are not rational decisions, the system cannot continue to exist making decisions like this to say nothing of the impact against struggling families. Congressional Republicans have made it clear they intend to cut the Department of Education to the very bone and ideally they would like to eliminate it entirely. And keep those precious subsidies to the precious oil giants. There is only so much you can do. Just wave goodbye as it all sinks beneath the waves of history and hope something better comes along. Hard to see how it could involve letting people vote. Maybe a self perpetuating system like the Catholic or Mormon hierarchies would be better.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Kapalama Heights.
    Posts
    5,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    Scriv, I've assked you this in the past and you refuse to answer.
    On the contrary, I've never refused to answer a question you've asked. If I failed to answer, it was probably due to my dropping out of whatever thread you asked it in. I try to get in on these threads early while the discussions still make sense and then I usually bail when they get repetitive. I wouldn't even have jumped in on this one except that I found the language and name-calling in the original post especially distasteful.

    What programs are you going to cut?
    Oh, I wouldn't stop merely at programs. I would cut entire departments, even channeling some of the money saved directly back to states, if that what it took. What if we cut the Department of Education, for example, and then gave 25% of its budget back to the states, split up fifty ways according to need? The federal government gets out of education and the states get fairly decent seed-money to address their own educational needs, whatever they happen to be.

    I'm not saying this is one thing I would do, but it's the type of thing I would do. Give me a few days to think about it.

    It is one thing to complain about Federal spending but it is whole nother thing to come up with a viable program. Let's see if you will answer this time.
    I believe I've made clear in other threads my libertarian leanings. Whether something is viable or not seems to be the kind of thing libertarians and non-libertarians simply cannot agree on, at least on that huge a scale. I would cut most of the cabinet-level departments and send MOST (not all!) of the programs overseen by them back to the states. I would jack up military spending but bring an end to our current wars immediately.

    There are certain things we need to maintain at a federal level that I would keep, with apologies to my more hardcore libertarian brethren. OSHA, for example, is the kind of thing that makes us a better country than I believe many states would allow, the kind of thing that contributes to our identity as the land of the free. But the rest of the DoL? Slash. Education? Slash. Most of HHS? Slash. Most of HUD? Slash. Most (if not all) of Homeland Security? Slash.
    But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
    GrouchyTeacher.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by scrivener View Post
    Oh, I wouldn't stop merely at programs. I would cut entire departments, even channeling some of the money saved directly back to states, if that what it took. What if we cut the Department of Education, for example, and then gave 25% of its budget back to the states, split up fifty ways according to need? The federal government gets out of education and the states get fairly decent seed-money to address their own educational needs, whatever they happen to be..............I would cut most of the cabinet-level departments and send MOST (not all!) of the programs overseen by them back to the states. I would jack up military spending but bring an end to our current wars immediately.

    There are certain things we need to maintain at a federal level that I would keep, with apologies to my more hardcore libertarian brethren. OSHA, for example, is the kind of thing that makes us a better country than I believe many states would allow, the kind of thing that contributes to our identity as the land of the free. But the rest of the DoL? Slash. Education? Slash. Most of HHS? Slash. Most of HUD? Slash. Most (if not all) of Homeland Security? Slash.
    Okay, you have laid it on the table and I have some comments.

    Increase military spending? Why? I saw a picture on the Internet yesterday of 12 soldiers stationed in Germany. They were all clinically obese (that's not what the picture was about, but matapule couldn't help but notice.) They are symbolic of the military, horribly obese. These guys would have trouble defending a Twinkie, let alone the USA. I would cut the VA. I would make military retirement 40 years not 20. I would cut the GI Bill. I would stop PX benefits. And that's just a start, let's not put any more lipstick on that pig.

    Put the States in charge of spending? What makes you think the State governments are any more responsible than the Federal government? As an educator, you know that the Civil War was about State's rights, not slavery per se. Scriv, that battle has already been fought and your side lost. The Federal government plays a decisive and vital role in evening out the State's diverse interests and priorities and no amount of Libertarian complaining is going to change that. We need a strong Federal government to represent the best interest of all citizens including conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and universalist-unitarians.

    Cut Education? I would increase spending at all levels, not cut it. But I would also end the teachers special interest groups (unions), require they teach year round, increase their salary, and they be required to pass an annual oral and written competancy exam. My sister-in-law is a retired teacher at the elementary level (and a dedicated one at that). She said that at one staff meeting, one of her colleagues said, "when I was a kid, they taught us there were 48 states, but I'm not sure how many there are now." That teacher should have been fired on the spot.

    Keep OSHA? As Acoustic Lady says, "well, I agree with you, but in my case I really need mine." Scriv, you cannot have it both ways. You either cut everything or you cut nothing. It is just like our legislators with their pet projects, "everybody else's pet project is pork, but mine is essential to my district."

    Anyway, you have laid some talking points out there and that is good. Let's see if your ideas stand up to scrutiny. Let's see if my ideas stand up to scrutiny.
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Question Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    K, I have lost all confidence in your sincereity.
    Maka, I think you have lost your objectivity when reading my posts, and read into them what you want to see. You can lose your matapule rating for that, no?

    And now I feel like you are baiting me, and I won't bite. My sincerity is intact, my judgement may be questionable. Evidently you didn't understand my post at all; I think your anger is clouding your interpretation. Are you still seething because I found no justifiable reason to apologise to Frankie? Before that, we used to be friends.

    I stand by what I say: if the government conscripts you when you're a dumb 19-year old and you are disabled doing their job, it is unconscionable to dump them in the streets to fend for themselves.

    If you don't want to pay the price, don't start wars.

    So you want to cut the VA? Why don't you also lobby to cut Social Security and Medicare while you're at it? Why should just veterans suffer?
    Last edited by Kaonohi; February 11th, 2011 at 01:21 PM.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaonohi View Post
    So you want to cut the VA? Why don't you also lobby to cut Social Security and Medicare while you're at it? Why should just veterans suffer?
    I'm not lobbying to cut VA, I said it was my opinion that it was a bloated program and should be cut. But I'm not lobbying for anything. Just a couple of posts above, I said I was willing to pay more for Medicare. As far as SocSec, I don't get much, much less than the average. I planned ahead since I had no confidence in the SocSec system when I was working full time, that it would still be there when I retired. I made my own private arrangements for retirement over my full time working years. Take my SocSec away from me if you want. It will hurt a little but I will survive.

    So I laid my principles out there on the budget as have Scriv and AL, you have yet to do so.

    As far as losing my matapule status, only my noble Fakatulolo, the one who bestowed the honor, can do that and he is happy with my efforts.
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    I'm not lobbying to cut VA, I said it was my opinion that it was a bloated program and should be cut.

    So I laid my principles out there on the budget as have Scriv and AL, you have yet to do so.
    Didn't know that was a requirement for presenting opinions here.
    My principles are simple:
    1. Honor your obligations and promises (Ex: VA and Social Security).
    2. Cut spending where there is obvious waste; apply common principles of cost benefit. (Do you know what Senators get paid? And their lifetime security blanket?)
    3. Let American dollars take care of America first.

    Other than that I'm hardly qualified to "lay out my principles" other than what I have experienced, and I experienced years of the VA ignoring and abusing its wards. I disagree with your opinion.
    Last edited by Kaonohi; February 11th, 2011 at 08:15 PM.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    259

    Thumbs up Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    When it comes to trying to solve money issues, you'll find a lot more complaining and blaming of parties, and very little offering of solutions. It's easy to say we can cut things here, and dissolve full-on departments. We can spend all day trimming branches and cutting back on some programs, but for representative morality, one of the first places that can use some refining is Congress itself.

    Without bringing up any of the Congressional retirement plan myths, their current retirement plan under CSRS and FERS sounds pretty reasonable. For the most part, they mimic a lot of other similar federal retirement plans, which makes it on par with other non-Congressional government jobs. Obviously, it's not flawless.

    On average, a Congressman's salary is approximately $175k/yr. Figuratively speaking, I think that's a pretty fair number based on the responsibilities their job description has, the hours they're supposed to put in, etc. That's lower than most corporate management positions, and yet these guys are supposed to be part of a national leadership structure. Congressmen are elected from all walks of life, from the grass roots small town nobody, to the multi-millionaire business owner. It's a job, and they deserve pay. But can their budget be trimmed first?

    One potential solution: Net worth salary cap?
    Some of these Congressmen already earn or have earned tens of millions of dollars prior to being elected to their position. For some, a mere $175K per year is less than what they earn on monthly interest. After a 'career' in Congress, they're eligible for retirement benefits (multiple methods depending on age and service and which program). If their retirement salary is but a fraction of that... is it really necessary to pay a multi-millionaire chump change for reaching 62? Many Democrats and Republicans already exceed $50M in net worth. How they earned it before is good on them, and I applaud their prior success.

    Partial spinoff...
    While I believe everyone who does a job is entitled to be paid for it, I find those Congressmen who have volunteered to lower their salary or benefit out of principle in the past to be admirable.

    One possible solution: "Retirement" is typically factored by years served and age. A "minimum of 5 years service" should not automatically make one eligible for a pension.
    For those of you who met reasonable requirements (aka "done your time"), of 20, 25, or 30+ years, and/or reached a retirement age with honorable service, you deserve your pensions. One retirement eligibility criterion available under FERS is: "Retirement with a deferred, full pension available at age 62 for any former member of Congress with at least 5 years of Federal Service." That's about as ridiculous as saying you'll join the military for a 5-year service obligation in your 20s, and being fully eligible for retirement by 40 years later based on your initial commitment. Considering a Congressman is already jumping straight in to a $150k+ salary, that is the easiest method of collecting free cash, and I feel that is a wrong.

    Going back to "doing your time," a Congressman should at least do double-digit service to have some form of eligibility. 10 years may be a little low, and 20 should certainly be automatic. But either way, the Congressman's retirement eligibility is also determined by how well he does. If he gets voted out before that eligibility tenure requirement, then too-bad-so-sad. You don't collect a pension from a job you got fired from after working 6 or 8 years. They shouldn't get it for doing a poor job in very little time.


    This is my partial contribution to throw into the thread. Just trying to keep it short before the list gets too long. There is more to add later.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Smile Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by bjd392 View Post
    You don't collect a pension from a job you got fired from after working 6 or 8 years. They shouldn't get it for doing a poor job in very little time.


    This is my partial contribution to throw into the thread. Just trying to keep it short before the list gets too long. There is more to add later.
    bjd, you expressed wonderfully one of my pet peeves of top-heavy government - much more completely and succinctly than I ever could. Really put it into perspective, too. Kudos!
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Question Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by matapule View Post
    Take my SocSec away from me if you want.
    Now, why would I ever want to do that? I certainly didn't say that I wanted to.

    I get the feeling that you are either misunderstanding my comments or deliberately twisting my words - for what reasons I can't imagine and find hard to believe since it would belie your "Peace, Love and Local Grinds" philosophy expressed in your signature. I currently believe it's misunderstanding.

    I also feel that ever since you accused me of baiting you in another thread (I never tried to bait you - you misunderstood that comment at least) that you have been trying to bait me - your above comment just one example - lashing out at my military service and subsequent sacrifices yet another.

    I'm sorry if any of my comments have angered you enough to make you lash out at me in posted threads. I suggest that if you have a problem with me you are welcome to contact me in a private message or even post it on my profile board if you want it on public record (that way others could join in, too); it's bad form to go off-topic with personal issues.

    If you have a concern, I await your contact; I will no longer respond to personal issues in any open thread.

    K?
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Among the cuts is a cut to the Centers For Disease Control. The insanity speaks for itself. Behold the brilliance of the plan. First you assure that the gvt. will not have enough money to run adequately by cutting taxes for billionaires (that IS what the people voted for in November!), and then you have a perfect excuse to cut everything you never liked. That certainly includes the Environmental Protection Agency. Also liberal welfare cradle to grave nonsense like grants to poor people to afford their heating bills so they won't freeze to death. We want death. We must. Cutting the Centers for Disease Control, obviously you love death. All that money for the billionaires will make them so comfortable if, say, bird flu erases 70 % of the population. It gets you to some major questions: what is money for if not life? Would you rather have a billion dollars and be dead, or some minimum wage job and be alive? And what is the purpose of having a government? Why even have a government if it can't use the tools of medical science to preserve the people, the nation, from avoidable death by disease?

  22. #22

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    It was absolute genius to cut off the source of money to the government so eliminating meat inspection could be justified, or inspecting jets, or monitoring poisonous emissions from the campaign contributors' factories; anything that interferes with business. What sheer genius! And even though social security and medicare are funded by their own means, it will be possible to cut those back and give the money to rich people and speculators, too. Absolute genius!

  23. #23

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    One of the most important agencies to underfund is the Securities and Exchange Commission, it will make looting of the social security and medicare trust funds a snap for the campaign contributors. And even if it is not possible to loot those, other scams like the mortgage derivatives melt down will earn the campaign contributors countless billions, and big gubbmint will be helpless to prevent it, the SEC will be a toothless tiger.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    Its funny but it looks like the Republicans have an unbreakable hold on the election machine. Killing off the unions is a 2 sided blessing for them, not just enriching their corporate masters, but eliminating a big source of contributions for the Democratic Party. With the Citizens United decision, Republicans will be able to buy just about any election they want. The funny part is the citizenry does not want their policies, the citizenry does not want privatized social security, or medicare, it really does want good, well funded public education, it does want its working rights protected, it does not want Wall St. swindlers to have a free hand to steal their money. But thats what it votes for. Funny. Not funny ha ha, but funny strange. Pathetic, really.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    259

    Default Re: Republican Spending Cuts

    I support Unions in the sense that they are supposed to be a voice to the workers that are typically undermined in our society. In the previous decades, teachers, bus drivers, fire fighters, etc., were really getting screwed over. What I don't support are the Unions who have become so powerful that they greedily shut down public systems.

    I can understand if an average wage is $50K and workers united under a Union are only getting $40K. What I don't support is if they have a comfortable salary during a tough economic crisis and are unwilling to budge on 1, 2 or even 5% of their salary, even if it's to be put into their own retirement or health funds.

    The government isn't trying to be like Singapore, where it's mandated that 30+% of your paycheck is placed in a managed retirement fund, and another portion of your pay is devoted to taxes. The government is trying to make cuts here and there due to the last few years of overspending.

    For us responsible people, we've cut back on spending and extraneous luxuries knowing that the economy is in a bit of a bind lately. That doesn't mean we should be nitpicking and whining over 1 or 2 percent cuts (or even up to 10% as a figurative threshold for me), just because no one wants to (as Obama puts it himself) "give a little."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •