USA Spending

[sailsmen]

From the President's Office of Management and Budget
Year Total
Receipts Outlays +/− Inc/Dec
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 7.95%
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 7.41%
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 6.16%
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 7.81%
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 7.41%
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 2.77%
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 9.30%
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 17.94%
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 -1.75%
2011 esti 2,173,700 3,818,819 -1,645,119 10.49%
2012 esti 2,627,449 3,728,686 -1,101,237 -2.36%
Public Debt is the money we actually borrowed from others and must pay back. From the OMB Public Debt as a % of GDP, FY basis;
1960 41%
1964 35%
1968 27%
1972 21%
1976 22%
1980 22%
1884 30%
1988 36%
1992 43%
1996 43%
2000 30%
2004 31%
2008 37%
2010 63%

The following excerpts from the CBO 7-27-10 report
"...a growing level of

federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden

fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence

in the government’s ability to manage its budget,

and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow

at affordable rates.
The exact point at which such a crisis might

occur for the United States is unknown, in part because

the ratio of federal debt to GDP is climbing into unfamiliar

territory
According to the Congressional Budget

Office’s (CBO’s) projections, federal debt held by the

public will stand at 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal

year 2010, having risen from 36 percent at the end of fiscal

year 2007, just before the recession began. In only one

other period in U.S. history—during and shortly after

World War II—has that figure exceeded 50 percent.
Unless offsetting actions

are taken at some point to pay off the additional government

debt accumulated while the economy was weak,

people’s future incomes will tend to be lower than they

otherwise would have been.
To the extent that

additional tax revenues were generated by increasing marginal

tax rates, those rates would discourage work and

saving, further reducing output and incomes
When fiscal crises occur during

recessions, as they often do, such policy changes can

exacerbate the economic downturns—although some

studies suggest that certain types of fiscal austerity programs

tend, at least in some circumstances, to stimulate

economic growth.21

The later that actions are taken to address persistent

budget imbalances, the more severe they will have to be.

CBO’s long-term projections for the federal budget
indicate that an immediate, permanent cut in spending

or increase in revenues equal to about 1 percent of GDP

(relative to the policies assumed for the extended-baseline

scenario) or about 5 percent of GDP (relative to the

policies assumed for the alternative fiscal scenario) would

prevent a net increase in the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio over

the next 25 years. The latter would be equivalent to

roughly 20 percent of all of the government’s noninterest

spending this year."

[SGT_MERC]

That's a lot of letters and numbers to basically say the land lord will come to collect the rent. Just a matter of time.

[Fosters]

It's pretty sad when Obama is managing to make Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

I still find this thing amazing:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

[TooManyFords]

I found it comical that the Republicans could not produce their own budget yesterday, but still found 1 trillion in cuts insufficient.

My take: They already had a budget but it was less than Obama's plan and now they have to scramble to figure out where to cut even more so they can look fiscally conservative.

/ shakes head /

[CBT]

In my Macroeconomics class, the Professor has told us repeatedly that the outlook "is not all doom and gloom", but I know he probably has to say that just so it doesn't scare the **** out of the un-informed. It IS all doom and gloom.

[Fosters]

I found it comical that the Republicans could not produce their own budget yesterday, but still found 1 trillion in cuts insufficient.

My take: They already had a budget but it was less than Obama's plan and now they have to scramble to figure out where to cut even more so they can look fiscally conservative.

/ shakes head /

Yup... What they should have done, is go up there and say, ok, you dems liked Bill Clinton, take one of his budgets, adjust it for inflation and return to those spending levels. That way they wouldn't be able to say no, and the budget would still be at most half of what this monstrosity is...

[SC Cheesehead]

Yup... What they should have done, is go up there and say, ok, you dems liked Harry S. Truman, take one of his budgets, adjust it for inflation and return to those spending levels. That way they wouldn't be able to say no, and the budget would a whole heck of a lot less than what this monstrosity is...

Fixed it for you... :D

[Vortex]

It's pretty sad when Obama is managing to make Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

I still find this thing amazing:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

Except your forgetting the part about Bush not putting the Iraq and Afgan wars in the budget.

[SC Cheesehead]

Except your forgetting the part about Bush not putting the Iraq and Afgan wars in the budget.

Yeah, but he's got a health care bill that's gonna cost billions that he claims will save money, so six of one/half-dozen of the other... ;)

[CBT]

There is no such thing as a free lunch, PERIOD. Someone pays for it.

[duhtroll]

First of all, I have yet to be shown where this cost is coming from.

Secondly, billions (health care, assuming you are correct on the first part) doesn't equal trillions (wars) in this universe.

We have spent our way out of other recessions. Are you telling me the GOP (or anyone else?) would not have spent a whole crap ton of money to fix the economy?

The funny thing to me is that Obama said during his election campaign that money was going to be spent and that it was going to get worse before it got better -- he explained what was going to be necessary to fix the economy. He underestimated the cost, but was correct (so far) in the basic idea.

And people were fine with it back then. I think the next year will determine whether it ultimately worked or not, but it looks promising so far.


Yeah, but he's got a health care bill that's gonna cost billions that he claims will save money, so six of one/half-dozen of the other... ;)

[SC Cheesehead]

First of all, I have yet to be shown where this cost is coming from.

Secondly, billions (health care, assuming you are correct on the first part) doesn't equal trillions (wars) in this universe.

We have spent our way out of other recessions. Are you telling me the GOP (or anyone else?) would not have spent a whole crap ton of money to fix the economy?

The funny thing to me is that Obama said during his election campaign that money was going to be spent and that it was going to get worse before it got better -- he explained what he thought was going to be necessary to fix the economy. He underestimated the cost, but was correct (so far) in the basic idea.

And people were fine with it back then. I think the next year will determine whether it ultimately worked or not, but it looks promising so far.

Yep, and he's was right on both counts. We've spent a $h!tload of money, and it's gotten worse... :rolleyes:

The man has never held a position of fiscal responsibility in his life, and he's going to fix the economy?


Dump Obamacare and its onerous implications for business.
Lower taxes.
Decrease regulation.
Take concrete steps to reduce the deficit.
Give the business community some reasons to invest and really "stimulate" the economy, in other words, just get the heck out of the way and let business do what business does best.

[Haggis]

I would just like the U.S. Goverment to take the 1.6 Billion dollars we give to Egypt's military (obviously bribing them to leave Israel alone) and take 360-380 million of that money and give 1 Million dollars to every man, women and child in the U.S. This would stimulate the economy and relieve alot of hardships that people are facing now. Now this is just the money going to Egypt -what would happen if we reduced all other foreign aid the same amount! Eureka -we have found alot of extra money to pay down the debt!

This is not rocket science folks-most people have no idea how much we subsidize the rest of the world. If they really knew the costs to bribe our enemies -people would be physically sick.

The best post so far in a long time.

[Fosters]

Except your forgetting the part about Bush not putting the Iraq and Afgan wars in the budget.

http://costofwar.com/en/

Although I'm pretty sure that's a webpage that's been running a script at a set rate without accounting for the drawing down of troops in iraq, you can still clearly see the total cost of the iraq war for the past 10 years is well below 1 year worth of obama deficits. What's the excuse for the other years, and years to come?

[Fosters]

I would just like the U.S. Goverment to take the 1.6 Billion dollars we give to Egypt's military (obviously bribing them to leave Israel alone) and take 360-380 million of that money and give 1 Million dollars to every man, women and child in the U.S. This would stimulate the economy and relieve alot of hardships that people are facing now. Now this is just the money going to Egypt -what would happen if we reduced all other foreign aid the same amount! Eureka -we have found alot of extra money to pay down the debt!

This is not rocket science folks-most people have no idea how much we subsidize the rest of the world. If they really knew the costs to bribe our enemies -people would be physically sick.

If they took 360-380 million dollars and gave a million dollars to every one of the 300+ million men, women and children in the country, I'm pretty sure their math would still not get any better ;) :lol:

However, from a non-interventionist side, I do agree in cutting this kind of aid from not only egypt, but all countries. Every time we prop someone up, we also create an enemy. I don't see the middle eastern countries getting all pissed off at China. And I'm pretty sure Israel could fend for themselves... Maybe the middle east needs another 6 day war.

[tbone]

I would just like the U.S. Goverment to take the 1.6 Billion dollars we give to Egypt's military (obviously bribing them to leave Israel alone) and take 360-380 million of that money and give 1 Million dollars to every man, women and child in the U.S. This would stimulate the economy and relieve alot of hardships that people are facing now. Now this is just the money going to Egypt -what would happen if we reduced all other foreign aid the same amount! Eureka -we have found alot of extra money to pay down the debt!

This is not rocket science folks-most people have no idea how much we subsidize the rest of the world. If they really knew the costs to bribe our enemies -people would be physically sick.

360-380 million dollars equals 1 million for every citizen of the United States!!?????. There are 360-380 people in the entire country? That would actually be about $1.30 for every person, enough to buy a McDouble. Is this more of Obama's "fuzzy math"?

There are 308 million people in this country. To give each one 1 million dollars, we would need $308,000,000,000,000. That's 308 TRILLION
DOLLARS, which is more money than exists in the ENTIRE WORLD! Apparently it is rocket science.

I choose to earn a living, not sit around waiting for handouts.

[Fosters]

That's 308 TRILLION
DOLLARS, which is more money than exists in the ENTIRE WORLD!

I choose to earn a living, not sit around waiting for handouts.

You can do math, and you sound responsible. You're obviously old like me. :geezer: They have printers now for a reason, if there aren't 308 trillion dollars to go around, they will make it, dammit!

[tbone]

You can do math, and you sound responsible. You're obviously old like me. :geezer: They have printers now for a reason, if there aren't 308 trillion dollars to go around, they will make it, dammit!


Sure, we'll be just like Germany after WWI. Everyone can haul their dollars in the trunk of their Prius' to McDonald's to get that same McDouble which now costs, wait for it........


1 MILLION DOLLARS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republ ic

[SC Cheesehead]

Sure, we'll be just like Germany after WWI. Everyone can haul their dollars in the trunk of their Prius' to McDonald's to get that same McDouble which now costs, wait for it........


1 MILLION DOLLARS!

Hey, inflation is your friend!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78dcarter.phtml

[Fosters]

Hey, inflation is your friend!

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78dcarter.phtml

Hey, as long as it'll bring the price of my townhouse back up to what I owe... :o

[tbone]

I found it comical that the Republicans could not produce their own budget yesterday, but still found 1 trillion in cuts insufficient.


/ shakes head /


1 Trillion over 10 years!!!! A whole 100 Billion a year! Wow, what sacrifice! Break out "Hail to the Chief"!

[Fosters]

1 Trillion over 10 years!!!! A whole 100 Billion a year! Wow, what sacrifice! Break out "Hail to the Chief"!

Now that's comical!

You have to use liberal math to understand this.

The cost of the iraq war is 1 trillion. Which means it would be one million dollars to every man, woman and child in the united states for 10 years. THAT would solve our economy!

[CBT]

You have to use liberal math to understand this.

The cost of the iraq war is 1 trillion. Which means it would be one million dollars to every man, woman and child in the united states for 10 years. THAT would solve our economy!
I believe it was 1.6 trillion 2 weeks ago for the cost of Iraq war so far. Care to guess what the war in Affghannyland is costing us PER WEEK? Only 3 BILLION.

[tbone]

I believe it was 1.6 trillion 2 weeks ago for the cost of Iraq war so far. Care to guess what the war in Affghannyland is costing us PER WEEK? Only 3 BILLION.

It does suck. But I wonder what the cost would be to the world if we stood around and did nothing. Same for WWI, WWII and the Cold War. If we let all those situations go without the USA saving the world from themselves, we would not be sitting here typing right now.

Not conjecture, FACT!

[CBT]

It does suck. But I wonder what the cost would be to the world if we stood around and did nothing. Same for WWI, WWII and the Cold War. If we let all those situations go without the USA saving the world from themselves, we would not be sitting here typing right now.

Not conjecture, FACT!

The cost to the world if we wernt in Iraq or Afghan/stan? Nothing. Nothing would be the cost. No monetary cost, no human cost, nothing. Trying to spread democracy over there via hostile take over does not work with them. It's like trying to teach a gorilla how to use an ink pen. It probably isn't going to like it but it will be intertained for a quick minute, then it will shove the pen straight thru your eyehole, because that's what they know over there, that's ALL they know: Violence. Obama said he would not send any more troops over if he got elected. He has sent 40,000 more to Afghanland. We reached the point of diminishing returns the day after Saddam was caught and we stuck around. Now look. Gigantic waste of lives and money. Osama is and has been in Pakistan since 9/11, why are we in Afg. looking for him. Hillary Clinton asked a couple months back how it is that we can't find him. She couldn't find a chubby intern under her husbands desk in the Oval Office, but she going to complain about not being able to find Osama? It's crazy, and there is no end in sight. (great movie by the way, no end in sight) I used to think I could justify these wars, that changed around 2004-2005.

[PonyUP]

Look I think all sides can agree that all politicians (Republican and Democrat) suck at making budgets. The Iraq and Afghan wars are only part of the waste. Bush and Obama both have done bailouts without any regulation. For people that think the reagan era was so great, his pursuit of Deregulation caused a whole flurry of problems.

we spend money on protecting nature, and wildlife, and throw money at the education system with no real plan, we go to war for no reason, or rather a made up reason, we bailout companies because they were poorly managed, we allowed governement run mortgage houses to come out with ARM loans which gave people the opportunity to buy houses when they couldn't afford to buy a Big Mac.

The spending both sides does is ridiculous, but yet both sides feel justified for the most part when they are in power.

I think it is rather simple:
There are times when we are 50 states and there are times when we are one country. We need to stop letting the far left and the far right hijack agendas thats is how we got

Faith Based Financing
Stem Cell Research Banning
ObamaCare
NEA funding
and the list goes on and on from both sides.

The answer is to find middleground, nowadays it's the only way to unite a country and yet address each individual

[duhtroll]

And it would have gotten worse no matter who was elected -- he said that too. The mess was created long before Obama took office.

And deregulation is what caused the crash, in case you weren't paying attention.

Here's a bad loan. Now my buddies and I are going to make a side wager on whether or not I think you will pay that loan back. CRAP! It tanked. Hey! Bail me out! Cha-CHING!

Yeah, that's good for the economy. ;)

I am tired of hearing "lower taxes" with no qualifiers. People want to keep their money. Yeah, so do I, but I also realize that in order to pay for things, they need money from me.

Taxes have BEEN lower since the Bush tax cuts and what did that fix? Did that stave off the recession? So much for "lowering taxes" as a fix-all.

Stuff costs money. People want lots of things but they just don't want to pay for them.

Show me what we are going to eliminate by lowering taxes, specifically, and I don't want to hear stories like "my roommate's uncle's cousin's dog heard at the Qwik Trip that so-and-so has a huge government pension and that is why my taxes are too high."

Concrete examples, please. What are you going to cut? And if you are going to make cuts, you have to know what amount it is going to save, or the discussion is pointless.

Let's talk facts, not use someone's blog or editorial as a source.

Here's a fact from my own experience. Insurance rate increases in the last two years here were 16% (2010) and 15% (2009). This year (just announced last week) they will be going up 9.6%.

Looks like Obamacare is good for my insurance plan. We have had so many claims no other company will bid us right now (lots of babies) so we should be getting reamed on increases if Obamacare is so bad for us.


Yep, and he's was right on both counts. We've spent a $h!tload of money, and it's gotten worse... :rolleyes:

The man has never held a position of fiscal responsibility in his life, and he's going to fix the economy?


Dump Obamacare and its onerous implications for business.
Lower taxes.
Decrease regulation.
Take concrete steps to reduce the deficit.
Give the business community some reasons to invest and really "stimulate" the economy, in other words, just get the heck out of the way and let business do what business does best.

[tbone]

And it would have gotten worse no matter who was elected -- he said that too. The mess was created long before Obama took office.

And deregulation is what caused the crash, in case you weren't paying attention.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Yep. The mess started with Democrats. It was NO REGULATION AT ALL WHERE IT WAS NEEDED THE MOST!!!! NOT DEREGULATION! (in case you weren't paying attention)

Here are the FACTS.

Watch the whole thing! I know it's painful for some people to see and hear the truth. (not necessarily you)

[1 Bad Merc]

Alright -I screwed the math up and I am willing to take my hits for it :flamer:but the point remains is how do we go about subsidizing all these other countries when we cant even pay our bills at home! Let's take a year or two off and see what kinda of money that saves us.

[tbone]

Archie Bunker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_kME&feature=related

[tbone]

Alright -I screwed the math up and I am willing to take my hits for it :flamer:but the point remains is how do we go about subsidizing all these other countries when we cant even pay our bills at home! Let's take a year or two off and see what kinda of money that saves us.

It's true that we piss a lot of money away to other countries and it makes me angry too. But we can't just stop all of it at once. We all know that.

[Fosters]

And it would have gotten worse no matter who was elected -- he said that too. The mess was created long before Obama took office.

And deregulation is what caused the crash, in case you weren't paying attention.

Here's a bad loan. Now my buddies and I are going to make a side wager on whether or not I think you will pay that loan back. CRAP! It tanked. Hey! Bail me out! Cha-CHING!

Yeah, that's good for the economy. ;)

I am tired of hearing "lower taxes" with no qualifiers. People want to keep their money. Yeah, so do I, but I also realize that in order to pay for things, they need money from me.

Taxes have BEEN lower since the Bush tax cuts and what did that fix? Did that stave off the recession? So much for "lowering taxes" as a fix-all.

I think you'll find out that it did do something if you actually did some research:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/foxchart.jpg

Note the February 01 graph. Started with more job losses than this recession. Taxes got cut, companies reinvested. Current recession? Started at a lower job loss rate, Obama stimulated it, spent trillions of dollars, and the job losses keep going down.

If we don't pass the stimulus, unemployment will pass 8%. It's been damn near 10% for how long now after passing the stimulus?




Stuff costs money. People want lots of things but they just don't want to pay for them.

Show me what we are going to eliminate by lowering taxes, specifically, and I don't want to hear stories like "my roommate's uncle's cousin's dog heard at the Qwik Trip that so-and-so has a huge government pension and that is why my taxes are too high."

To start, welfare, and the now federally sponsored unemployment benefits. You pay people to not work, they're gonna do just that. Then continue with Obamacare. Then eliminate the IRS and the EPA. I don't think those 2 need any explanation.

Privatize education system and take out the department of education. We spend over 11,000 dollars per year per student and college graduates can barely spell, and often enough don't even know the difference between there/they're/their. 11,000 per year per student means 330,000 per classroom of 30. If the teacher makes 50-60k (and we all know they never get paid enough for the 9 months out of the year they work), where is the other 270-280k going? Rent? Nope, they don't pay that. Bus driver making bank? Doubt it. How about we cut some of THAT money? Each time they dare cut something to education, first thing, teachers get the axe so that it has a huge visible impact and parents get pissed off and start crying for more money. Privatize the damn thing, make the schools compete with each other, and you'll see competition take out the overhead like there's no tomorrow.

Plus, nowhere in the constitution does it say government is there to educate your kids. Why on earth do people with no kids have to pay taxes for schools and other people's kids? What if I choose to not have any kids and spend my money on cars instead? Can I force octomom to buy me nitrous for my mustang and marauder? Why are people forced to subsidize other people's hobbies - in octomom's case collecting babies? How about we each pay for what we use?


Concrete examples, please. What are you going to cut? And if you are going to make cuts, you have to know what amount it is going to save, or the discussion is pointless.

Let's talk facts, not use someone's blog or editorial as a source.

Here's a fact from my own experience. Insurance rate increases in the last two years here were 16% (2010) and 15% (2009). This year (just announced last week) they will be going up 9.6%.

Looks like Obamacare is good for my insurance plan. We have had so many claims no other company will bid us right now (lots of babies) so we should be getting reamed on increases if Obamacare is so bad for us.

That's awesome for you. I'm glad that you think Obamacare is so great. It must be awesome when someone else foots the bill for your (lots of babies) and lots of healthcare use. Why do I have to pay for your offspring?

Bring it on: :flamer:

[Fosters]

It's true that we piss a lot of money away to other countries and it makes me angry too. But we can't just stop all of it at once. We all know that.

Sure we can. How much money does China give in aid? When was the last time France sent in their military to stop some conflict halfway around the world? Trust me, the sun will still shine tomorrow if we stop. :)

I'm of the opinion of sit back and if someone attacks us, we make an example out of them... IE: Japan in WW2. I doubt they'll attack us anytime soon...

[SC Cheesehead]

And it would have gotten worse no matter who was elected -- he said that too. The mess was created long before Obama took office.

And deregulation is what caused the crash, in case you weren't paying attention.

Here's a bad loan. Now my buddies and I are going to make a side wager on whether or not I think you will pay that loan back. CRAP! It tanked. Hey! Bail me out! Cha-CHING!

Yeah, that's good for the economy. ;)

I am tired of hearing "lower taxes" with no qualifiers. People want to keep their money. Yeah, so do I, but I also realize that in order to pay for things, they need money from me.

Taxes have BEEN lower since the Bush tax cuts and what did that fix? Did that stave off the recession? So much for "lowering taxes" as a fix-all.

Stuff costs money. People want lots of things but they just don't want to pay for them.

Show me what we are going to eliminate by lowering taxes, specifically, and I don't want to hear stories like "my roommate's uncle's cousin's dog heard at the Qwik Trip that so-and-so has a huge government pension and that is why my taxes are too high."

Concrete examples, please. What are you going to cut? And if you are going to make cuts, you have to know what amount it is going to save, or the discussion is pointless.

Let's talk facts, not use someone's blog or editorial as a source.

Here's a fact from my own experience. Insurance rate increases in the last two years here were 16% (2010) and 15% (2009). This year (just announced last week) they will be going up 9.6%.

Looks like Obamacare is good for my insurance plan. We have had so many claims no other company will bid us right now (lots of babies) so we should be getting reamed on increases if Obamacare is so bad for us.

Will agree 100% with you on the cause of the mess, goes back to at least Jimmy Carter... ;)

As far as deregulation, I assume you're referring to the mortgage loan meltdown. There was extreme political pressure to relax requirements on sub-prime loans, deregulation in and of itself wasn't the culprit here, to a large extent, the government created the mess.
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/21/mortgage-meltdown-was-caused-by-government-mandates/

What's not to understand about the power of lower taxes? Stands to reason, if I give less of my money to the government and keep more of it for myself (myself being either a business entity or a private individual), I can use it in various productive ways, many of which will in turn generate wealth. The government is not a wealth generator, it can only consume or redistribute. NOTHING I give to the federal government, in the form of taxes, will generate wealth, and if you have an example to refute this statement, I'd be very pleased to see it.

Businesses are accountable and must run within a defined budget, or they'll go out of business, why can't we hold our government to the same standards?

2010 Federal Budget


Mandatory spending: $2.009 trillion (-20.1%)



$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States ))
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States))
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid)
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_public_debt)
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De fense) (including Overseas Contingency Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror))
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_He alth_and_Human_Services)
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Tr ansportation)
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ve terans_Affairs)
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_St ate) and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ho using_and_Urban_Development)
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ed ucation)
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ho meland_Security)
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_En ergy)
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ag riculture)
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ju stice)
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space _Administration)
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Co mmerce)
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_La bor)
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th e_Treasury)
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th e_Interior)
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pr otection_Agency)
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration )
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Science _Foundation)
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_En gineers)
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Infrastructure_Reinve stment_Bank)
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_National_and_C ommunity_Service)
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Small_Business_A dministration)
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_General_Services _Administration)
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Nearly 56% of the fenderal budget (excluding Defense) is associated with discretionary or entitlement programs (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). Stop funding, cut back, or eliminate some of those discretionary programs and roll back spending on entitlements and that'll free up cash for tax cuts or better yet, allow us to pay down some of our obscene federal debt. As far as I'm concerned, Social Security should be privatized, but eliminating that cash cow will never happen, so no sense dreaming about that one.

On another point? why do you think insurance rates go up? Might it be that costs are going up, or do you think they are just out to gouge you personally? :rolleyes:

In the long run, do you actually believe that Obamacare is NOT going to cost you more money, or that your healthcare options will not decrease in the future?

*An IBD/TIPP poll taken in August 2009 found that 4 out of every 9 American doctors (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556398/201012091905/New-Poll-Confirms-IBDs-09-Finding-Of-Doctor-Exodus-Under-ObamaCare.htm) said that they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed Obamacare.

*According to a survey (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62812) published in the New England Journal of Medicine, approximately one-third of all practicing physicians in the United States indicated that they may leave the medical profession because of the new health care law.
http://thedebtweowe.com/obamacare-nightmare-40-percent-of-all-u-s-doctors-plan-to-bail-out-of-the-profession-over-the-next-three-years

But hey, why worry about this stuff, let's just pour us another glass of kool aid and drink up... :rolleyes:

[Fosters]

In the long run, do you actually believe that Obamacare is NOT going to cost you more money, or that your healthcare options will not decrease in the future?


Having lived under a universal healthcare and dental government ran plan for the first 15 years of my life, I can guarantee you, anyone who thinks Obamacare is a good thing will change their mind... But by that point everyone will be too proud to admit they were for it. Thank god for internet forums ;)

[tbone]

Sure we can. How much money does China give in aid? When was the last time France sent in their military to stop some conflict halfway around the world? Trust me, the sun will still shine tomorrow if we stop. :)

I'm of the opinion of sit back and if someone attacks us, we make an example out of them... IE: Japan in WW2. I doubt they'll attack us anytime soon...

Let me get this straight. You want a communist country doling out money and calling the shots around the world!?:eek: Do I really have to go into why this is a bad idea?

France and military = oxymoron The French are cowards.:shake:

[Fosters]

Let me get this straight. You want a communist country doling out money and calling the shots around the world!?:eek: Do I really have to go into why this is a bad idea?

France and military = oxymoron The French are cowards.:shake:

Nope, I'm just saying, they're a superpower with a crapload of money, yet they don't give aid to a whole lot of countries...except maybe north korea. We're giving money, but we're not exactly calling the shots.

[PonyUP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Yep. The mess started with Democrats. It was NO REGULATION AT ALL WHERE IT WAS NEEDED THE MOST!!!! NOT DEREGULATION! (in case you weren't paying attention)

Here are the FACTS.

Watch the whole thing! I know it's painful for some people to see and hear the truth. (not necessarily you)

May not be fair to blame one party or the other, we can always continue to go back far enough to blame another party. I think it's fair to say that both sides are irresponsible with money. Every modern President has increased the national debt. Some were victims of circumstance, some cowtailed to lobbyists, but they were all irresponsible. Maybe it's time that we elect an accountant with a track record of balanced spreadsheets :lol:

I really don't know why politicians can't grasp this concept, if you spend more than you make, you have a defecit, hence, don't spend more than you make. Granted that is WAY oversimplifying it, but if they took that approach, perhaps we would be in better shape. Just my two cents

[tbone]

The fact that we do business with them at all makes me sick. We can thank none other than Bill Clinton for ruining our economy by opening up trade with a country that pays its people pennies on the dollar to our workers. What the hell did he think was going to happen?

China will never give aid like we do. They are COMMUNIST!

We need to raise tarriffs on Chinese products to at least level the playing field. It will never happen, because they are financing our debt, and Washington is afraid to piss them off. They are effectively in charge of the US.

What a GD mess we are in. God help us.

[tbone]

May not be fair to blame one party or the other, we can always continue to go back far enough to blame another party. I think it's fair to say that both sides are irresponsible with money. Every modern President has increased the national debt. Some were victims of circumstance, some cowtailed to lobbyists, but they were all irresponsible. Maybe it's time that we elect an accountant with a track record of balanced spreadsheets :lol:

I really don't know why politicians can't grasp this concept, if you spend more than you make, you have a defecit, hence, don't spend more than you make. Granted that is WAY oversimplifying it, but if they took that approach, perhaps we would be in better shape. Just my two cents

The entire economic collapse started and was caused by the GSE Fannie and Freddie's spectacular demise. I provided proof that the GOP was begging for regulation and the Dems flat out rebuked it. I think it is VERY FAIR to blame one side.

[PonyUP]

Will agree 100% with you on the cause of the mess, goes back to at least Jimmy Carter... ;)

As far as deregulation, I assume you're referring to the mortgage loan meltdown. There was extreme political pressure to relax requirements on sub-prime loans, deregulation in and of itself wasn't the culprit here, to a large extent, the government created the mess.
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/21/mortgage-meltdown-was-caused-by-government-mandates/

What's not to understand about the power of lower taxes? Stands to reason, if I give less of my money to the government and keep more of it for myself (myself being either a business entity or a private individual), I can use it in various productive ways, many of which will in turn generate wealth. The government is not a wealth generator, it can only consume or redistribute. NOTHING I give to the federal government, in the form of taxes, will generate wealth, and if you have an example to refute this statement, I'd be very pleased to see it.

Businesses are accountable and must run within a defined budget, or they'll go out of business, why can't we hold our government to the same standards?

2010 Federal Budget



Mandatory spending: $2.009 trillion (-20.1%)



$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States ))
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States))
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid)
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_public_debt)
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De fense) (including Overseas Contingency Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror))
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_He alth_and_Human_Services)
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Tr ansportation)
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ve terans_Affairs)
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_St ate) and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ho using_and_Urban_Development)
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ed ucation)
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ho meland_Security)
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_En ergy)
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ag riculture)
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ju stice)
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space _Administration)
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Co mmerce)
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_La bor)
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th e_Treasury)
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th e_Interior)
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pr otection_Agency)
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration )
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Science _Foundation)
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Corps_of_En gineers)
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Infrastructure_Reinve stment_Bank)
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_National_and_C ommunity_Service)
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Small_Business_A dministration)
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_General_Services _Administration)
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Nearly 56% of the fenderal budget (excluding Defense) is associated with discretionary or entitlement programs (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). Stop funding, cut back, or eliminate some of those discretionary programs and roll back spending on entitlements and that'll free up cash for tax cuts or better yet, allow us to pay down some of our obscene federal debt. As far as I'm concerned, Social Security should be privatized, but eliminating that cash cow will never happen, so no sense dreaming about that one.

On another point? why do you think insurance rates go up? Might it be that costs are going up, or do you think they are just out to gouge you personally? :rolleyes:

In the long run, do you actually believe that Obamacare is NOT going to cost you more money, or that your healthcare options will not decrease in the future?

*An IBD/TIPP poll taken in August 2009 found that 4 out of every 9 American doctors (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556398/201012091905/New-Poll-Confirms-IBDs-09-Finding-Of-Doctor-Exodus-Under-ObamaCare.htm) said that they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed Obamacare.

*According to a survey (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62812) published in the New England Journal of Medicine, approximately one-third of all practicing physicians in the United States indicated that they may leave the medical profession because of the new health care law.
http://thedebtweowe.com/obamacare-nightmare-40-percent-of-all-u-s-doctors-plan-to-bail-out-of-the-profession-over-the-next-three-years

But hey, why worry about this stuff, let's just pour us another glass of kool aid and drink up... :rolleyes:

This is a great post Rex, I love how they ahve mandatory and then discretionary spending. Taking just the military as an example, if we limited their budget to just the costs of living (I.E. bases, salary, utilities, gas) for a period of 3 years, we would save an estimated half a trillion (I'm guessing) then cut every other Discretionary spending in half until we erase the defecit, which would save an additional $339 Billion a year. Seems simple to me. Thoughts?

[SC Cheesehead]

The fact that we do business with them at all makes me sick. We can thank none other than Bill Clinton for ruining our economy by opening up trade with a country that pays its people pennies on the dollar to our workers. What the hell did he think was going to happen?

China will never give aid like we do. They are COMMUNIST!

We need to raise tarriffs on Chinese products to at least level the playing field. It will never happen, because they are financing our debt, and Washington is afraid to piss them off. They are effectively in charge of the US.

What a GD mess we are in. God help us.

While tariffs sound like a great idea, there is definitely a downside to imposing them.

First off, US consumers would have to deal with the consequences: the prices of consumer goods would increase if tariffs are imposed. Granted, consumers have helped create the problem because they demand cheaper goods, regardless of how or where they were manufactured (ala Wal-Mart :cool:). Also, this increase in consumer prices could be compounded should China choose to retaliate against such a tariff with additional trade restrictions of their own; other US trade partners could also see this as a threat and respond with their own restrictions (e.g. Japan, Korea, etc.).

Here's an idea, why not make it easier and cheaper for US companies to compete in the world market? Of course, that would require less government intervention via relaxed or abolished regulations; and of course, if we lowered corporate tax rates it would make us more competitive, but I digress... :rolleyes:

[Fosters]

While tariffs sound like a great idea, there is definitely a downside to imposing them.

First off, US consumers would have to deal with the consequences: the prices of consumer goods would increase if tariffs are imposed. Granted, consumers have helped create the problem because they demand cheaper goods, regardless of how or where they were manufactured (ala Wal-Mart :cool:). Also, this increase in consumer prices could be compounded should China choose to retaliate against such a tariff with additional trade restrictions of their own; other US trade partners could also see this as a threat and respond with their own restrictions (e.g. Japan, Korea, etc.).

Here's an idea, why not make it easier and cheaper for US companies to compete in the world market? Of course, that would require less government intervention via relaxed or abolished regulations; and of course, if we lowered corporate tax rates it would make us more competitive, but I digress... :rolleyes:

^^^^^ This.

Are you gonna be on the ballot? :coolman:

[SC Cheesehead]

^^^^^ This.

Are you gonna be on the ballot? :coolman:

Nope, ain't dumb enough to pull a stunt like that... ;)

I just make sure I'm in regular contact with my elected officals.

As Niccolò Machiavelli so aptly noted, he who influences has power...

[kernie]

In 1995 the New York times called Canada a third world country, a dollar worth about .62 cents US, finances out of control, ect.
Good government practices have made the difference.


http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2011/01/go-north-young-man-go-north.html

Canada Is Quietly Surpassing the U.S. as the Land of Opportunity

Unless the Winter Olympics are on television or someone is clubbing baby seals, Americans don’t pay much attention to what’s happening in Canada. It’s as if we live in a house with a set of quiet, orderly neighbors on one side and a bachelor pad with drunken parties, girls in the hot tub and occasional gunshot eruptions on the other. To whom would you pay more attention?

I dare say Americans could correctly name the president of Mexico (Filipe Calderon) over the prime minister of Canada (Stephen Harper) by a margin of 5-to-1. That’s too bad. While we have every reason to fear the disorder spilling over from our increasingly lawless neighbor to the south, our well-mannered Canadian neighbors have pulled their act together. We could learn a lot from them.

Look what’s not happening in Canada. There is no real estate crisis. There is no banking crisis. There is no unemployment crisis. There is no sovereign debt crisis. Recent reports suggest that consumers are loading up too much debt, but Canada shares that problem with nearly every other country in the industrialized world.

Among the Group of Seven nations, which also include the United States, France, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy, Canada’s economic activity has come the closest to returning to the pre-recession peak. The country has recovered three-quarters of all jobs it lost. The International Monetary Fund estimates that Canada will be the only country among the G-7 have achieved a balanced budget by 2015.

Now, instead of expanding Canada’s welfare state, the conservative government led by Mr. Harper is intent upon building the nation’s global competitiveness. Our friends in the Great White North cut their corporate tax rate to 16.5 percent on Jan. 1 and will see it drop to 15 percent next year. That compares to the current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent. That will give Canada the lowest corporate tax rate among the G-7 nations and an eye-popping advantage for businesses wondering whether to locate on the U.S. or Canadian side of the border.

The last time Canadians really caught Americans’ eyes was when prime ministers such as Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, both leaders of the Liberal Party, were proving uncooperative in the realm of foreign policy. American media played up disagreements over the invasion of Iraq and Canadian participation in the American National Missile Defense Program, which made President George W. Bush look bad and confirmed the narrative that his cowboy foreign policy had alienated old friends around the world. By contrast, when Canadian soldiers became active combatants in Afghanistan, the American media showed little interest.

But that’s nothing new. Except to note how well or how poorly Canada’s national health care system was working, Americans have paid little heed to news coming out of Ottawa. The titanic effort of both Canada’s liberal and conservative parties in the 1990s and 2000s to rein in government spending largely escaped our notice. Nor did it ever occur to anyone to wonder why, with our economies so closely entwined, U.S. housing prices were busting through the roof while Canadian houses remained so sensible.

It turns out that Ottawa’s housing policies and banking regulations tempered the boom in real estate prices. No tax deductions for mortgage interest payments. And get this: Buyers actually had to make down payments on their houses. Because there was no real estate bust, there was no banking crisis. (Indeed, healthy Canadian banks are snapping up U.S. financial assets.) Despite the lack of public policies geared toward stimulating homeownership, Canadian homeownership was 68.4 percent in 2008. That would be a higher number than in the United States , which was 67.4 percent in 2009.

Lesson to Americans: If you want affordable housing, stop promoting policies to make it more “affordable.”

Meanwhile, Canada has many of the same assets that Americans like to brag about, such as an immigrant tradition that invites foreigners to live and work in the country. On a per-capita basis, the rate of legal immigration to Canada is comparable to that to the U.S. Settling in world-class, creative cities like Toronto and Vancouver, foreigners add immeasurably to the nation’s wealth-creating capacity.

Talented Canadians have long regarded the United States as the land of opportunity. It may not be long before Americans see our northern neighbor as the land of the future.

[tbone]

Canada, the 51st state.

[kernie]

Canada, the 51st state.

Ya know tbone, Archie Bunker was meant to be laughed at.

:shake:

[SpartaPerformance]

Fixing the budget is easy. Get rid of the federal dept of education, I'm sure we all pay a nice amount of property taxes that go to public school. I know I do. Get rid of military bases we don't need, do we really need bases in Europe? Really? Fire half the federal clerks, they're pretty much useless anyways, get rid of Czars, we don't live in pre revolutionary Russia. Cut the presidents salary and congresses salary by 50%. Do you know how much we could save if we increase the retirement age by 2 years starting in 2020? Billions!!!!

[duhtroll]

This is over 10 years too late - the damage occurred at least a decade prior.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Yep. The mess started with Democrats. It was NO REGULATION AT ALL WHERE IT WAS NEEDED THE MOST!!!! NOT DEREGULATION! (in case you weren't paying attention)

Here are the FACTS.

Watch the whole thing! I know it's painful for some people to see and hear the truth. (not necessarily you)

[SC Cheesehead]

The International Monetary Fund estimates that Canada will be the only country among the G-7 have achieved a balanced budget by 2015.

Now, instead of expanding Canada’s welfare state, the conservative government led by Mr. Harper is intent upon building the nation’s global competitiveness. Our friends in the Great White North cut their corporate tax rate to 16.5 percent on Jan. 1 and will see it drop to 15 percent next year. That compares to the current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent. That will give Canada the lowest corporate tax rate among the G-7 nations and an eye-popping advantage for businesses wondering whether to locate on the U.S. or Canadian side of the border.

It turns out that Ottawa’s housing policies and banking regulations tempered the boom in real estate prices. No tax deductions for mortgage interest payments. And get this: Buyers actually had to make down payments on their houses. Because there was no real estate bust, there was no banking crisis. (Indeed, healthy Canadian banks are snapping up U.S. financial assets.) Despite the lack of public policies geared toward stimulating homeownership, Canadian homeownership was 68.4 percent in 2008. That would be a higher number than in the United States , which was 67.4 percent in 2009.

Lesson to Americans: If you want affordable housing, stop promoting policies to make it more “affordable.”


^^^^^^ Thanks for posting, kernie!

Somebody needs to make sure PrezBO and duhtroll get the memo.

Fiscal responsibility, tax cuts, reduced government influence over the private sector; and Canada's booming? Whoda thunk it. :rolleyes:

[Fosters]

Fixing the budget is easy. Get rid of the federal dept of education, I'm sure we all pay a nice amount of property taxes that go to public school. I know I do. Get rid of military bases we don't need, do we really need bases in Europe? Really? Fire half the federal clerks, they're pretty much useless anyways, get rid of Czars, we don't live in pre revolutionary Russia. Cut the presidents salary and congresses salary by 50%. Do you know how much we could save if we increase the retirement age by 2 years starting in 2020? Billions!!!!

Agreed on all of the above... but with over 10000 baby boomers (might be more, forgot the actual numbers) retiring every day, good luck with that last one ;)

[duhtroll]

I think you'll find out that it did do something if you actually did some research:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/foxchart.jpg

You're drawing a conclusion from something that may or may not be the sole cause - this graph doesn't show anything other than a large trend.

What did lower taxes do for THIS recession? They were in place the entire time.


To start, welfare, and the now federally sponsored unemployment benefits. You pay people to not work, they're gonna do just that. Then continue with Obamacare. Then eliminate the IRS and the EPA. I don't think those 2 need any explanation.

1) I am still waiting for evidence that Obamacare is going to cost more than he has said it would. I am neither for it nor against it. I just refuse to condemn something without evidence. So far for me, it looks like it hasn't hurt.

2) Reform welfare, but good luck eliminating it. Sure, there is abuse - fix that. But if welfare were really the root of all the evil people assign to it, then the people would have demanded it go away before now.


Privatize education system and take out the department of education. We spend over 11,000 dollars per year per student and college graduates can barely spell, and often enough don't even know the difference between there/they're/their. 11,000 per year per student means 330,000 per classroom of 30. If the teacher makes 50-60k (and we all know they never get paid enough for the 9 months out of the year they work), where is the other 270-280k going? Rent? Nope, they don't pay that. Bus driver making bank? Doubt it. How about we cut some of THAT money? Each time they dare cut something to education, first thing, teachers get the axe so that it has a huge visible impact and parents get pissed off and start crying for more money. Privatize the damn thing, make the schools compete with each other, and you'll see competition take out the overhead like there's no tomorrow.

Privatize education? Here is where any attempt you're making at logic loses all credibility.

Fine. Let's privatize it. Ask yourself some questions. Let's say 1 school outscores 5 others in a large city. All the parents now want their kids to go there. To say nothing for the laws of physics, add up the transportation costs of moving kids farther from their homes.

Then what happens to the other 5 schools? Close them? Fire all the teachers? Replace them with what?

As for costs, let's just take away computers and schools won't have to spend so much.

As I said, we want to have stuff, we just don't want to pay for it.

Add up what a $3 lunch and a $3 breakfast (which most schools now offer) cost you over 180 days. Using your total figures of $11,000, that doesn't seem like a lot at all.

Ever run utilities numbers for large districts? Transportation costs? Custodial/Maintenance? Insurance? The ever expanding special education programs? What about all of the programs for kids who have no supportive home life?

I haven't even included regular instruction yet.


Plus, nowhere in the constitution does it say government is there to educate your kids. Why on earth do people with no kids have to pay taxes for schools and other people's kids? What if I choose to not have any kids and spend my money on cars instead? Can I force octomom to buy me nitrous for my mustang and marauder? Why are people forced to subsidize other people's hobbies - in octomom's case collecting babies? How about we each pay for what we use?

OK. Let's make it so that you only have to pay if you have kids. You can pay $11,000 per year per student and everyone else can remain unburdened.

How many people do you think would actually pay that? How many people do you think would be ABLE to pay that?

And finally, where do you think all of those kids who are not in school are going to end up?


That's awesome for you. I'm glad that you think Obamacare is so great. It must be awesome when someone else foots the bill for your (lots of babies) and lots of healthcare use. Why do I have to pay for your offspring?

You don't. Your point here is fear-mongering, nothing more. You haven't paid a dime for my child, nor will you ever.

I also never said I was an Obamacare fan. I merely say that I refuse to bash something just because FOX News says so.

Show me the costs of Obamacare over and above what he says it will cost. So far all I have heard is "You just wait and whoa, man, you're gonna get it!" :rolleyes:

[duhtroll]

Agreed - for what is in the past, blame makes very little difference at this point. All that matters is how to fix it.

Obama has had two years to fix something that took much longer in the "breaking." If the numbers don't fall his way by 2012 he won't be in for a second term.

But if they do improve, I doubt anyone here will give him any credit for the recovery, which is sad, IMO.


May not be fair to blame one party or the other, we can always continue to go back far enough to blame another party. I think it's fair to say that both sides are irresponsible with money. Every modern President has increased the national debt. Some were victims of circumstance, some cowtailed to lobbyists, but they were all irresponsible. Maybe it's time that we elect an accountant with a track record of balanced spreadsheets :lol:

I really don't know why politicians can't grasp this concept, if you spend more than you make, you have a defecit, hence, don't spend more than you make. Granted that is WAY oversimplifying it, but if they took that approach, perhaps we would be in better shape. Just my two cents

[duhtroll]

Fine.

It is all Democrats fault. :rolleyes:

Did that fix anything?

OK. Can we move on, now?


The entire economic collapse started and was caused by the GSE Fannie and Freddie's spectacular demise. I provided proof that the GOP was begging for regulation and the Dems flat out rebuked it. I think it is VERY FAIR to blame one side.

[duhtroll]

The Federal Dept. of Education and public schools are far, FAR from being the same thing.

I wouldn't mind seeing them severely limited, but they do have a role. they just like to dictate lately it seems.

The President doesn't make that much, so cutting his salary and even every Congressperson doesn't really amount to much. It would be nothing more than symbolic.

Besides, you pay Presidents less, you'll get crappy Presidents. :D


Fixing the budget is easy. Get rid of the federal dept of education, I'm sure we all pay a nice amount of property taxes that go to public school. I know I do. Get rid of military bases we don't need, do we really need bases in Europe? Really? Fire half the federal clerks, they're pretty much useless anyways, get rid of Czars, we don't live in pre revolutionary Russia. Cut the presidents salary and congresses salary by 50%. Do you know how much we could save if we increase the retirement age by 2 years starting in 2020? Billions!!!!

[PonyUP]

^^^^^^ Thanks for posting, kernie!

Somebody needs to make sure PrezBO and duhtroll get the memo.

Fiscal responsibility, tax cuts, reduced government influence over the private sector; and Canada's booming? Whoda thunk it. :rolleyes:

the Myans were right, 2012 is apparently the end, Canada is surpassing us and we are looking to them as an example :lol:

Just kidding my Canadian Brethren

[kernie]

Privatize education? Here is where any attempt you're making at logic loses all credibility.

Fine. Let's privatize it. Ask yourself some questions. Let's say 1 school outscores 5 others in a large city. All the parents now want their kids to go there. To say nothing for the laws of physics, add up the transportation costs of moving kids farther from their homes.

Then what happens to the other 5 schools? Close them? Fire all the teachers? Replace them with what?

As for costs, let's just take away computers and schools won't have to spend so much.

As I said, we want to have stuff, we just don't want to pay for it.

Add up what a $3 lunch and a $3 breakfast (which most schools now offer) cost you over 180 days. Using your total figures of $11,000, that doesn't seem like a lot at all.

Ever run utilities numbers for large districts? Transportation costs? Custodial/Maintenance? Insurance? The ever expanding special education programs? What about all of the programs for kids who have no supportive home life?

I haven't even included regular instruction yet.



OK. Let's make it so that you only have to pay if you have kids. You can pay $11,000 per year per student and everyone else can remain unburdened.

How many people do you think would actually pay that? How many people do you think would be ABLE to pay that?

And finally, where do you think all of those kids who are not in school are going to end up?



:rolleyes:

Thank-you, how can anyone even entertain the idea of big buisness taking over education?

[PonyUP]

Agreed - for what is in the past, blame makes very little difference at this point. All that matters is how to fix it.

Obama has had two years to fix something that took much longer in the "breaking." If the numbers don't fall his way by 2012 he won't be in for a second term.

But if they do improve, I doubt anyone here will give him any credit for the recovery, which is sad, IMO.

I do agree with this point, accessing blame at this point won't solve anything. It would be nice to have a discussion about solutions instead of just accessing blame.

In my opinion, there are a lot of drivers behind the current economic collapse, and there was failures by both parties. It was more than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, though those are certainly large contributors. And while we can look at a video of some select Democrats mouthing off and use that as evidence that it is their fault, I am quite certain I could find video evidence pointing to the Republicans as the party being at fault (despite my not believing either party is to blame, but rather they both are). At this point, does it really matter who is at fault?

We spend so much time in this world demonizing other parties and their points of view, we forget one uniting factor. In the end we all want what is best for this country, we just have different ideas on how to get their. Both parties offer legitimate views and there is middle ground in most of the issues that divide us. Where we lose ourselves is the extremes in both parties and both sides.

24hr news stations (all of them) have to report something in those 24 hrs, so they take slanted views towards the party that ends up putting the most money in their pockets, which means what is portrayed on the news, mostly slants towards a Democrat view, however Fox and other news stations are just as guilty.

What gets lost in this, is the average American with a short attention span hears things on these news stations, and then adopts it as their view. The more passionate the news station becomes, the more passionate the average viewer. And as these stations spend most of their time demonizing their opponents, it translates that way throughout America.

All of us that have entered into this discussion, have varying points of view. Everyones opinion is just that, an opinion. It can be neither right or wrong. You may not agree with it, you may have a different point of view, which is great. Many people have died so we have the freedom to share that point of view.

I submit, that we talk about solutions, and have an honest debate. While we won't solve anything, there are some great ideas I have seen posted on here that frame thinking. While I certainly consider myself a Democrat, well really more of a moderate or independant I would say, I know that for me personally, there have been arguments on this forum that have swayed my thought process.

In other words, can't we all just get along. Yup thats right, I went back to nineties and reached for a Rodney King quote. Peace

[kernie]

the Myans were right, 2012 is apparently the end, Canada is surpassing us and we are looking to them as an example :lol:

Just kidding my Canadian Brethren

Ha!

I know, time is running out!

:beer:

[69428SCJ]

...Taking just the military as an example, if we limited their budget to just the costs of living (I.E. bases, salary, utilities, gas) for a period of 3 years, we would save an estimated half a trillion (I'm guessing)...


Here's the problem with that, if you're spending money only on those items, then we can't train. And that's all the military does is train, that's how we prepare to go to war. And you wouldn't want to send an untrained Army into a battle would you?

[Fosters]

Thank-you, how can anyone even entertain the idea of big buisness taking over education?

I'd rather education increase in cost at the same rate as gasoline prices rather than the rate they have been...

Why are there unions in the public sector?

[PonyUP]

Here's the problem with that, if you're spending money only on those items, then we can't train. And that's all the military does is train, that's how we prepare to go to war. And you wouldn't want to send an untrained Army into a battle would you?

You have a point, though couldn't we cut back on some training? I doubt we will see a war on the scale of Vietnam, or World War II anymore, so I think some of the training could be streamlined and done more efficiently. Though admittedly, I don't know enough about it to truly make a strong argument. It would just seem to me that as one of the largest discretionary spends, that it probably has the most room to cut, not permanently, but for a brief period.

But lets say we keep training the way it is, other monster spends can be cut. for example, the biggest waist in military spending in the history of the world, the star wars missle defense system. It was defunct because it never worked, then resurrected where it again never worked, I think this is gone now, at least I hope so. I think we definitely need to continue to advance our weapons, but could probably put it on hold for a year or two and be okay.

But it's just an idea. I love our troops and every day I am appreciative for the efforts they give in order to give me the freedom to rant on this site, and I never want to see them in harms way. I just have to believe, there is some room to cut there, at least temporarily

[kernie]

You have a point, though couldn't we cut back on some training? I doubt we will see a war on the scale of Vietnam, or World War II anymore, so I think some of the training could be streamlined and done more efficiently. Though admittedly, I don't know enough about it to truly make a strong argument. It would just seem to me that as one of the largest discretionary spends, that it probably has the most room to cut, not permanently, but for a brief period.

But lets say we keep training the way it is, other monster spends can be cut. for example, the biggest waist in military spending in the history of the world, the star wars missle defense system. It was defunct because it never worked, then resurrected where it again never worked, I think this is gone now, at least I hope so. I think we definitely need to continue to advance our weapons, but could probably put it on hold for a year or two and be okay.

But it's just an idea. I love our troops and every day I am appreciative for the efforts they give in order to give me the freedom to rant on this site, and I never want to see them in harms way. I just have to believe, there is some room to cut there, at least temporarily

When you consiter the fact that the U.S.A. spends nearly as much as the rest of the planet combined...

Yes is would say there is some room for reductions, lol.

:beer:

[SpartaPerformance]

The Federal Dept. of Education and public schools are far, FAR from being the same thing.

I wouldn't mind seeing them severely limited, but they do have a role. they just like to dictate lately it seems.

The President doesn't make that much, so cutting his salary and even every Congressperson doesn't really amount to much. It would be nothing more than symbolic.

Besides, you pay Presidents less, you'll get crappy Presidents. :D


Of course it's symbolic, and as for crappy presidents besides Reagan that's all we've had since JFK. :D

[tbone]

Ya know tbone, Archie Bunker was meant to be laughed at.

:shake:

Seriously?:bs:

So are democrats.

[SC Cheesehead]

I'd rather education increase in cost at the same rate as gasoline prices rather than the rate they have been...

Why are there unions in the public sector?

IMO, kinda like crop circles and the Giant Sphynx, real mysteries...:rolleyes:

[sailsmen]

Congressional Budget Office's March, 2010 estimate of the
President's 2011 Budget Public Debt as a % of GDP;
Actual
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
53.0 63.2 70.1 73.6 74.8 75.7 77.4 79.6 81.8 84.3 87.1 90.0

"Over the 2011–2020 period, deficits would total $9.8
trillion, or 5.2 percent of GDP during that period"

"Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public
would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at
the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at
the end of 2020—$5 trillion above what CBO projects
for 2020 in its baseline (see Figure 1-2). In addition to
the $3.8 trillion in added deficits from the President’s
policies, the government’s borrowing needs would rise by
another $1.3 trillion in order to finance additional direct
lending to students and other credit programs."

Washington Times - March 26, 2010
"For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios “above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more,” according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland."

Former Tres Sec Rubin, appointed by Pres Clinton, states - "The United States faces projected 10-year federal budget deficits that seriously threaten its bond market, exchange rate, economy, and the economic future of every American worker and family. " -"The commission also found that no economy anywhere in the world had been successful with largely state-directed activities and high walls against global integration.
The evidence, in other words, strongly suggests that a market-based model is still the best way forward. ", (Rubin wrote in NewsWeek, 12-29-09)

[CBT]

You want a communist country doling out money and calling the shots around the world!?

China already does this. They have mining operations in war zones Americans are fighting in right now, yet you don't hear about any Chinese workers getting killed in Iraq or Afgh., why is that? 2 reasons: Money, and because they hate the U.S., not China.


While tariffs sound like a great idea, there is definitely a downside to imposing them.

First off, US consumers would have to deal with the consequences: the prices of consumer goods would increase if tariffs are imposed. Granted, consumers have helped create the problem because they demand cheaper goods, regardless of how or where they were manufactured (ala Wal-Mart :cool:). Also, this increase in consumer prices could be compounded should China choose to retaliate against such a tariff with additional trade restrictions of their own; other US trade partners could also see this as a threat and respond with their own restrictions (e.g. Japan, Korea, etc.).

Here's an idea, why not make it easier and cheaper for US companies to compete in the world market? Of course, that would require less government intervention via relaxed or abolished regulations; and of course, if we lowered corporate tax rates it would make us more competitive, but I digress... :rolleyes:

In class the other night the professor asked how we could bring jobs back here and compete with China. I gave things that would have to happen for us to compete on a global scale with China. Step 1, eliminate the EPA. Step 2, outlaw unions. Step 3, everyone works for way less pay thean we get now. Those 3 things are NOT going to happen, and manufacturing jobs are NOT coming back here. China has enough money to charge next to nothing for thier goods just to tank our economy and basically force us to buy things from them because we cannot undercut them, and our government is NOT going to do anythig about it.

[SC Cheesehead]

Former Tres Sec Rubin, appointed by Pres Clinton, states - "The United States faces projected 10-year federal budget deficits that seriously threaten its bond market, exchange rate, economy, and the economic future of every American worker and family. " -"The commission also found that no economy anywhere in the world had been successful with largely state-directed activities and high walls against global integration.
The evidence, in other words, strongly suggests that a market-based model is still the best way forward. ", (Rubin wrote in NewsWeek, 12-29-09)

Looks like another memo that PrezBO wasn't copied on... :rolleyes:

[CBT]

Here's the problem with that, if you're spending money only on those items, then we can't train. And that's all the military does is train, that's how we prepare to go to war. And you wouldn't want to send an untrained Army into a battle would you?

We've been in Iraq for 8 years. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. We have enough veterans with combat experience to bow out from being the world police for 3 years. That what the U.N. is for anyway. For years I've been saying we should handle our business here at home FIRST. Spend money on us and our domestic issues. I really do not give a **** if a village in some third world **** hole gets a paved street or a new well pump or a soccer field. Why keep bailing out countries that hate us? Why keep policing a world that never gave us a mandate? Okayz I'm done, i haz made myself a sad. :shake:

[SC Cheesehead]

We've been in Iraq for 8 years. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. We have enough veterans with combat experience to bow out from being the world police for 3 years. That what the U.N. is for anyway. For years I've been saying we should handle our business here at home FIRST. Spend money on us and our domestic issues. I really do not give a **** if a village in some third world **** hole gets a paved street or a new well pump or a soccer field. Why keep bailing out countries that hate us? Why keep policing a world that never gave us a mandate? Okayz I'm done, i haz made myself a sad. :shake:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

[CBT]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

Nice! I like this one:

I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to.
Jimi Hendrix (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jimihendri195398.html)

[SC Cheesehead]

Here's a little item to check out.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/the-damage-obama-has-done/

Yeah how's this hopey - changey thing working out for you, folks?

[CBT]

Here's a little item to check out.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/the-damage-obama-has-done/

Yeah how's this hopey - changey thing working out for you, folks?

I still say he was handed a bag of turds. That being said, he has also been in office a couple years now...

[SC Cheesehead]

I still say he was handed a bag of turds. That being said, he has also been in office a couple years now...

When life hands you lemons, make lemonaide.

When life hands you a bag of turds...:rolleyes:

[duhtroll]

At least for my state, collective bargaining has only been around since 1976.

The reason unions exist in education is to prevent abuse by administrators who want to give their buddies a raise while shutting out everyone else. Or to prevent someone being fired for voicing their opinion in a meeting. Or to prevent a superintendent from arbitrarily taking away someone's sick leave because he was upset they missed lots of days due to having cancer.

Or even to tell female teachers, including physical education teachers, they will be wearing a dress or floor-length skirt each and every day.

Yep, seen 'em all.

I can't find the study right now, but the findings were that the more intelligent a person is, the less they want to be in charge, while the lower the IQ, the more often they thought they should be running things.

If teachers unions are costing so much money, why aren't teachers being paid more? :lol:


I'd rather education increase in cost at the same rate as gasoline prices rather than the rate they have been...

Why are there unions in the public sector?

[LIGHTNIN1]

We've been in Iraq for 8 years. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. We have enough veterans with combat experience to bow out from being the world police for 3 years. That what the U.N. is for anyway. For years I've been saying we should handle our business here at home FIRST. Spend money on us and our domestic issues. I really do not give a **** if a village in some third world **** hole gets a paved street or a new well pump or a soccer field. Why keep bailing out countries that hate us? Why keep policing a world that never gave us a mandate? Okayz I'm done, i haz made myself a sad. :shake:

Agreed with totally.
The federal government has added 200,000 jobs in the last two years.It should be just the opposite.The IRS is talking about hiring 6000. George Bush might have gotten us into Iraq and Afghanny Stan but you can't blame him for the next 20 yrs. The Pres now says we are out of Iraq but we still have 50,000 there, hardly out of there. Why are we still in Afghannystan? Leave today. How is anyone, except those 200,000 new federal workers, better off today than 2 yrs. ago? The country as a whole is surely not.

[PonyUP]

Agreed with totally.
The federal government has added 200,000 jobs in the last two years.It should be just the opposite.The IRS is talking about hiring 6000. George Bush might have gotten us into Iraq and Afghanny Stan but you can't blame him for the next 20 yrs. The Pres now says we are out of Iraq but we still have 50,000 there, hardly out of there. Why are we still in Afghannystan? Leave today. How is anyone, except those 200,000 new federal workers, better off today than 2 yrs. ago? The country as a whole is surely not.

Agreed, it's time to cut bait in both countries, which should ahve been done a long time ago. They have been scared of the power vacuum our departure would cause, and yet even with us there, the power vacuum still exists and anarchy ensues.

As far as not blaming Bush for the next 20 years, it's ahrd to truly tell the effect a Presidency has for a number of years following that term. I still submit the President has very little, if anything to do with the economy, Bush included. They tend to get the credit when it is good, and the blame when it is bad. If we are going to blame a President, then since it collapsed under Bush, he's to blame right?

No, since Democrats controlled congress, they are to Blame right?

No, there are number of factors involved for the rsie and fall of an economy. A capatilist economy is cyclical, meaning we have been through this before, and guess what? It will happen again. History will and always has repeated itself. From the Energy Crisis of the 70's, the Savings and Loan Scandals of the 80's, the recession of 2001, and our current mess, which more closely resembles the depression of the 30's. Economy's do this to correct themselves.

there are things we can do to aid it, but no one will agree on what that is, we can't even do it here. Many economists will tell you that during a recession, it's a necessity for government spending to increase, and others will tell you it's important to cut spending. Some will say that you must cut taxes and put the money in the hands of the people, others will tell you to raise taxes because if you can't afford even the mandatory programs, you better increase the funds coming in.

We don't know the effect the Bush Presidency has our nation for many years, and it will all be open to perspective, as will the Obama Presidency.

Reagan is a good example of this, I suspect that many people here are strong supporters of Reagan. From my perspective the spend mantra of the 80's, Trickle Down Economics, and a relentless pursuit of Deregulation very much impacted the situation we are in today, 30 years later.

Some will retort that Reagan rebounded a struggling economy, eased restrictions for corporations to conduct business, and by ffeding money to the top 2% of the country, it eventually filtered down to the middle class.

Both sides are valid points, and are perspective. But all points, directly reflect an impact here 30 years later. There is no telling how good or bad a President is in current times. Especially these current times, as there is so much venom between the two parties that we have truly adopted ourselves in large part as "What I think is right, and if you don't agree, you must be crazy"

Political adversaries have always had a certain amount of dischord for each other, but there was a time, when they worked together. The sad thing is, none of us are old enough to remember that time.

[CBT]

Agreed, it's time to cut bait in both countries, which should ahve been done a long time ago. They have been scared of the power vacuum our departure would cause, and yet even with us there, the power vacuum still exists and anarchy ensues.

As far as not blaming Bush for the next 20 years, it's ahrd to truly tell the effect a Presidency has for a number of years following that term. I still submit the President has very little, if anything to do with the economy, Bush included. They tend to get the credit when it is good, and the blame when it is bad. If we are going to blame a President, then since it collapsed under Bush, he's to blame right?

No, since Democrats controlled congress, they are to Blame right?

No, there are number of factors involved for the rsie and fall of an economy. A capatilist economy is cyclical, meaning we have been through this before, and guess what? It will happen again. History will and always has repeated itself. From the Energy Crisis of the 70's, the Savings and Loan Scandals of the 80's, the recession of 2001, and our current mess, which more closely resembles the depression of the 30's. Economy's do this to correct themselves.

there are things we can do to aid it, but no one will agree on what that is, we can't even do it here. Many economists will tell you that during a recession, it's a necessity for government spending to increase, and others will tell you it's important to cut spending. Some will say that you must cut taxes and put the money in the hands of the people, others will tell you to raise taxes because if you can't afford even the mandatory programs, you better increase the funds coming in.

We don't know the effect the Bush Presidency has our nation for many years, and it will all be open to perspective, as will the Obama Presidency.

Reagan is a good example of this, I suspect that many people here are strong supporters of Reagan. From my perspective the spend mantra of the 80's, Trickle Down Economics, and a relentless pursuit of Deregulation very much impacted the situation we are in today, 30 years later.

Some will retort that Reagan rebounded a struggling economy, eased restrictions for corporations to conduct business, and by ffeding money to the top 2% of the country, it eventually filtered down to the middle class.

Both sides are valid points, and are perspective. But all points, directly reflect an impact here 30 years later. There is no telling how good or bad a President is in current times. Especially these current times, as there is so much venom between the two parties that we have truly adopted ourselves in large part as "What I think is right, and if you don't agree, you must be crazy"

Political adversaries have always had a certain amount of dischord for each other, but there was a time, when they worked together. The sad thing is, none of us are old enough to remember that time.


I stopped blaming one side or the other the day I learned what a lobbyist is. It was a moment of clarity. As long as lobbyist outnumber Dems and 'Pubs 7 to 1, and are gaming them both, I refuse to put a single party label on the blame sheet.

[kernie]

I stopped blaming one side or the other the day I learned what a lobbyist is. It was a moment of clarity. As long as lobbyist outnumber Dems and 'Pubs 7 to 1, and are gaming them both, I refuse to put a single party label on the blame sheet.

Lobbists and political contributions, two practices that should end IMO. Everybody owes favors, big buisness in the politicians pocket, how can anyone just do the right thing?

I've said it before, outlaw lobbist and let the government pay its self.

My 2 cents.

:beer:

[Fosters]

At least for my state, collective bargaining has only been around since 1976.

The reason unions exist in education is to prevent abuse by administrators who want to give their buddies a raise while shutting out everyone else.

...

If teachers unions are costing so much money, why aren't teachers being paid more? :lol:

So at 11,000 dollars per student, per year, in a class of 30, thus with a budget of 330,000; if the teacher only gets say 60k of that (if that), how have the unions worked? It seems like 270k of that is going to administrators and their buddies... If the unions don't work, why not get rid of them? Better yet, privatize the whole damn thing. Let the market decide what they get paid. Better schools will get paid more. Worse schools I guess won't be training astronauts.

And public sector unions are there for negotiating pay raises with officials (who may be elected or not), who couldn't give a crap about our tax dollars. What interest do these officials have in keeping public sector unions in line, since the money is not coming out of their bottom line?

In closing, I'll leave you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States #Funding


Funding for K–12 schools
According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency).[78] However, the United States is ranked 37th in the world in education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. All but seven of the leading countries are in the third world; ranked high because of a low GDP.[79] U.S. public schools lag behind the schools of other developed countries in the areas of reading, math, and science.[80]
According to a 2007 article in The Washington Post, the Washington D.C. public school district spends $12,979 per student per year. This is the third highest level of funding per student out of the 100 biggest school districts in the U.S. Despite this high level of funding, the school district has produced outcomes that are lower than the national average. In reading and math, the district's students score the lowest among 11 major school districts – even when poor children are compared with other poor children. 33% of poor fourth graders in the U.S. lack basic skills in math, but in Washington D.C., it's 62%.[81] In 2004, the U.S. Congress set up a voucher program for low income minority students in Washington D.C. to attend private schools. The vouchers were $7,500 per student per year. The parents said their children were receiving a much better education from the private schools. In 2007, Washington D.C. non-voting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said she wanted the voucher program to be eliminated, and that the public schools needed more money.[82] Secretary of Education Arne Duncan supports retaining vouchers for the district only, as do some DC parent groups.[83][84]
According to a 2006 study by the Goldwater Institute, Arizona's public schools spend 50% more per student than Arizona's private schools. The study also says that while teachers constitute 72% of the employees at private schools, they make up less than half of the staff at public schools. According to the study, if Arizona's public schools wanted to be like private schools, they would have to hire approximately 25,000 more teachers, and eliminate 21,210 administration employees.[85]
During the 2006–2007 school year, a private school in Chicago founded by Marva Collins to teach low income minority students charged $5,500 for tuition, and parents said that the school did a much better job than the Chicago public school system.[86] However, Collins' school was forced to close in in 2008 due to lack of sufficient enrollment and funding.[87] Meanwhile, during the 2007–2008 year, Chicago public school officials claimed that their budget of $11,300 per student was not enough.[88]
In 1985 in Kansas City, Missouri, a judge ordered the school district to raise taxes and spend more money on public education. Spending was increased so much, that the school district was spending more money per student than any of the country's other 280 largest school districts with a charge to "dream" of the possibilities and to make them happen. Although this very high level of spending continued for more than a decade, there was no improvement in the school district's academic performance.[89][90]
Public school defenders answer that both of these examples are misleading, as the task of educating students is easier in private schools, which can expel or refuse to accept students who lag behind their peers in academic achievement or behavior, while public schools have no such recourse and must continue to attempt to educate these students. For this reason, comparisons of the cost of education in public schools to that of private schools is misleading; private school education can be accomplished with less funding because in most cases they educate those students who are easiest to teach.[91]
But not in all cases. For example, Marva Collins created her low cost private school specifically for the purpose of teaching low income African American children whom the public school system had labeled as being "learning disabled".[92] One article about Marva Collins' school stated, "Working with students having the worst of backgrounds, those who were working far below grade level, and even those who had been labeled as 'unteachable,' Marva was able to overcome the obstacles. News of third grade students reading at ninth grade level, four-year-olds learning to read in a few months, outstanding test scores, disappearance of behavioral problems, second-graders studying Shakespeare, and other incredible reports, astounded the public." [93]
According to a 1999 article by William J. Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, increased levels of spending on public education have not made the schools better. Among many other things, the article cites the following statistics:[94]
Between 1960 and 1995, U.S. public school spending per student, adjusted for inflation, increased by 212%.
In 1994, less than half of all U.S. public school employees were teachers.
Out of 21 industrialized countries, U.S. 12th graders ranked 19th in math, 16th in science, and last in advanced physics.
A 2008 report[95] by The Heritage Foundation provides the following chart based on data[96][97] from the US Department of Education indicating no real improvement in reading scores, while per student expenditure more than doubles from $4,060 in 1970 to $9,266 in 2005: (click to see image)
Other commentators have suggested that the public school system has exhibited signs of success. SAT scores have risen consistently over the past decades, despite the fact that the pool of students taking the test has increased from an academic elite to a much more representative sampling of the population. Commentators have suggested that this increase in scores, coming as it does at a time when more students have started to take the test and the public schooling system has faced ever-increasing challenge, suggests that the US educational system is much more effective than is commonly believed, and that the negative cast common in public perception is due to negative propaganda disseminated by elements with a personal interest in discrediting or weakening public education.[98]
[...]
Another issue is that many parents of private school and home-schooled children have taken issue with the idea of paying for an education their children are not receiving. However, tax proponents point out that every person pays property taxes for public education, not just parents of school-age children. Indeed, without it schools would not have enough money to remain open. Still, parents of students who go to private schools want to use this money instead to fund their children's private education. This is the foundation of the school voucher movement. School voucher programs were proposed by free-market advocates seeking competition in education, led by economist Milton Friedman, but have been criticized for damaging public schools, both in funding and diversity.

[sailsmen]

Our Gov't set 3 Noble Goals;
Who ever wanted a home bought one
Who ever wanted a loan got one
Who ever wanted a College education got one.

Our Gov't facilitated these goals buy reducing the "cost of money". Making money cheap. Like most things when you make them too cheap people don't take care of it for it has little value.

The reason why Countries with a high Public Debt to GDP have economic problems is because of the amount of GDP that is going towards paying the Public Debt is not economic activity, it is a drag on economic activity.

The CBO has said when Public Debt exceeds 60% of GDP it poses a danger to our Economy. We are currently over 67%. Our Gov't has Budgeted per the CBO in 2009 10 years 82% and in 2010 10 years 90%. The IMF for 10 years estimated 105%, where Greece was a few years ago.

Going back to 2008 Spending per the CBO is sustainable, essentially eliminating the increases that have occurred for the past 2 years.

We are standing on the cliff of financial collapse with one foot over the edge. We have months, not years, to fix it.

Currently Gov't spends thru taxing and borrowing ~35% of every dollar in our economy leaving ~65% to generate wealth and economic growth.

[Fosters]

Currently Gov't spends thru taxing and borrowing ~35% of every dollar in our economy leaving ~65% to generate wealth and economic growth.

*puts liberal goggles on*

So you're gonna give 65% to the wealthy???!?!??? :mad2:

*goggles off*

I like this quote:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill

[SC Cheesehead]

I can't find the study right now, but the findings were that the more intelligent a person is, the less they want to be in charge, while the lower the IQ, the more often they thought they should be running things.

If teachers unions are costing so much money, why aren't teachers being paid more? :lol:

True, that; have seen it myself.

+1 on the second point, my daughter's a teacher and isn't paid very well.

[tbone]

China already does this. They have mining operations in war zones Americans are fighting in right now, yet you don't hear about any Chinese workers getting killed in Iraq or Afgh., why is that? 2 reasons: Money, and because they hate the U.S., not China.




Correct. I just don't want them to be the world's largest CHARITY organization as well.

[sailsmen]

What is very disturbing is our Gov't is making numerous statements that the Budget put forth will not add to the Public Debt.
The only way the Budget will not add to the Public Debt is if the Gov't stops making the Public Debt payments. Essentially the Budget spends the Public Debt payments.

I don't think it is a good idea for our Gov't to make these types of statements. It can result in a run on the dollar and cashing in on Gov't Bonds.

[tbone]

What is very disturbing is our Gov't is making numerous statements that the Budget put forth will not add to the Public Debt.
The only way the Budget will not add to the Public Debt is if the Gov't stops making the Public Debt payments. Essentially the Budget spends the Public Debt payments.

I don't think it is a good idea for our Gov't to make these types of statements. It can result in a run on the dollar and cashing in on Gov't Bonds.

Obama can't help but lie. It's in his nature.

[SC Cheesehead]

Obama can't help but lie. It's in his nature.



Come on, man, cut him some slack.

It ain't lying, it's C.Y.C.B.I....:rolleyes:

[duhtroll]

Yeah, no other president has ever lied.


Come on, man, cut him some slack.

It ain't lying, it's C.Y.C.B.I....:rolleyes:

[Fosters]

Yeah, no other president has ever lied.

Difference is, in libs' eyes, Obama's lies are Bush's fault as well.

[LIGHTNIN1]

They probably have all lied it is just that when the LIES column gets to be close to 100% and the TRUTH column is close to zero that lying becomes a problem if you happen to be the Community Organizer In Chief. It is kind of like picking a Minister to listen to. You want him to have at least as good morals as you. It is a big plus if he has better morals.:rolleyes:

[duhtroll]

Yeah!

You know what people I have never met REALLY think...

Git 'em!


Difference is, in libs' eyes, Obama's lies are Bush's fault as well.

[Fosters]

Yeah!

You know what people I have never met REALLY think...

Git 'em!

I'll be here all day. http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/images/smilies/drum.gif

[PonyUP]

Difference is, in libs' eyes, Obama's lies are Bush's fault as well.

Kind of a broad brush, not all Democrats think everything is Bushs fault. He made his share of mistakes, as has Obama, but it's not all his fault. Like Isaid before, we give the President way to much credit or blame for the economy, when they have very little effect on it. Most policies that are put in place, including all the bailouts are party platforms.

some would say those bailouts have worked with market rebound, travel business on the rise etc. some would say they ahve failed because unemployement is high, and people are still struggling and spending is out of control.

the truth is we won't know for some time the size of the success or failure, but sitting pointing fingers at one party or the other will get us nowhere.

I'm curious though, of the current potential candidates, who does everyone think will do better? What do you think they will do differently?

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to defend Obama, as I certainly haven't agreed with all he has done.

[Bluerauder]

There is no such thing as a free lunch, PERIOD. Someone pays for it.

This has been a very interesting discussion. Lots of people without a clue offering their perspective on how to fix this major problem. I suspect that is a lot of what goes on in Congress and probably why a solution continues to elude us. So, I thought that I would chime in with my :twocents:

CBT’s statement above ^^^^^^^^ is about the most rationale that I’ve seen on the entire subject. “There ain’t no such thing as a ‘Free Lunch’ PERIOD. You get what you pay for. Unfortunately, some of the things that we are paying for … just are not providing the results intended. Bottom Line is that the US is wasting one heck of a lot of money. And most of that waste is located in the so-called “Mandatory Spending”. These accounts are also called “Entitlements”. To many both in and out of Government, this means that those accounts are untouchable. As long as we feel that way, getting the Federal Budget under control is a mission impossible. You cannot balance the entire budget on the back of the Department of Defense. Everything else is just ‘chump change’.

The Elephant in the Room is that just five (5) accounts make up 79% of the entire Federal Budget. Those accounts are Social Security, Other Entitlements (Welfare, WIC, UB, Section 8a, etc), Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. Add in Interest on the Debt and you are at 84%. If you are serious about cutting spending, those are the accounts that you MUST reduce. Everything else is nibbling around the edges.

I understand that you must pay for the services and infrastructure that supports and builds the country. I also understand that National Defense is critical to the safety and security of US citizens. Taxes are the way we pay those bills.

I pay taxes. In fact, I pay a boatload of taxes. I don’t mind paying for programs that work. Pissing money away or just wasting it is really what gives me cause to say ‘Enough is Enough”.

Medicare Fraud and waste is estimated at $60-80 Billion per year. That’s 15%. I suspect Medicaid Fraud and abuse is at a similar level or maybe even higher (That’s another $44 Billion in waste). Failed programs under “Other Mandatory” – add another $86 Billion in waste. The Section 8a program, also known as the Housing Voucher Program is a total bust. 95% of its recipients fail to transition within the 5 year timeframe. Putting them into homes that they will NEVER be able to afford is just cruel. Fraud and abuse also infects Social Security but maybe at a lower level of about ½ that above. Even so, there’s another $52 Billion. Just in those accounts, there is probably a total of $252 Billion just in Fraud/Waste. One-quarter of a Trillion dollars PER YEAR. Of course, getting to it won’t happen over night. But you have to start somewhere, sometime …… Its about time we start.

Pony Up suggested cutting Defense and finding efficiencies in military training. Another said to get rid of bases in Europe (you do realize that most of them ARE CLOSED). Others have said get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I would rather see the fight take place ‘over there’ than in the streets of Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York ……. Or Sioux Falls. You get the picture.

The ONLY way to get any appreciable savings in the military is to cut Force Structure. How many Combat Brigades do you think is enough to keep your ass safe at home? How many Carrier Groups? Air Wings? Marine Divisions? It may come as a surprise to some that the US Army is 30% smaller than it was during Operation Desert Storm in 1990. It is about half the size of what it was during Vietnam and about one-quarter of what it was during WW II and Korea. The other Armed Services have taken even deeper cuts. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) have sized the force to meet the missions that it is assigned. According to the military experts, it is the right size for the mission. Cut training ….. yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Cut Force Structure? Not without changing the mission or cutting some of the requirements. Today’s force is on the ragged edge and weary of 10 years of war. Some are on their 5th or 6th deployment in that time frame. The operational tempo is unreal. Advocates of further cuts there just want to put more burden onto the backs of the troops. Sure its an option; but it ain’t smart.

Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Well we are already pulling out of the first. Our enemies are rooted in the second. Where would you rather fight them? The fight will exist …. We are just contemplating the location.

Maybe DoD can find 10% to throw in the savings pot by cutting programs, cutting staff, finding efficiencies, etc. So, add another $66 Billion into the pot. Probably not much more there without hurting RDTE, Modernization and Readiness.

Yeah, the other agencies can kick in some more …. But it really won’t be much. Even abolishing the Department of Education (which really doesn’t fund the schools you know) will contribute only a drop in the bucket. Schools are primarily funded by cities, counties and states. Fed contribution is negligible.

So, there you have it at about $318 Billion plus in budget reductions that could have been made in FY10 and every year thereafter. Easier said than done. Somebody’s gotta grow a set and get it done. Otherwise, we’ll be sliding down the tubes pretty soon now.

[PonyUP]

Very well said and thought out Blue, you make some great points. And while I think there is room to trim some of the military budget, you are right in your figures, so it may not cut that much. Welfare and other entitlements definitely need to be cut, and your example of whats paid in Medicare fraud is an excellent example of poor government management.

Perhaps the best way to address the budget problem is to cut a percentage from all programs. Then, like with most things moderation is key. I don't think Democrats have all the right answers, nor do Republicans or the Tea Party. Maybe we need to take pieces from all views, cut pieces of all spending, and perhaps we can then make progress.

Casey said it best, there is no free lunch, in the end everyone pays

[Bluerauder]

And while I think there is room to trim some of the military budget ....

There is no doubt that there are places where trimming should be done. I could give you a couple names right now. ;)


Perhaps the best way to address the budget problem is to cut a percentage from all programs.

The "Salami slice" method is the lazy man's method of applying cuts. It is easy to do; but avoids the hard work of finding the real places where programs are broken or organizations are not working properly. Unfortunately, the military tends to use this method alot 'cause they can claim that they are being fair to everyone. Like I said .... LAZY. Moreover, the Salami Slice method tends to make organizations do stupid things and actually punishes those that have been conscientious in cutting costs since they get a bill to pay along with the dirtbags who waste everything. JMHO.

[SC Cheesehead]

Yeah, no other president has ever lied.

You got me there, bubba. :o

Which one was it that said, "I did not have sex with that woman"?

[sailsmen]

The easiest is to go back to 2008 Spending. Who amoung us could not function on what they spent in 2008 due to a crisis?

The problem is when you have a structure, Gov't, that automatically increases spending every year.

We are at the tipping point. If we are unable to bring the proposed Budget deficit to under 3% of a realistic GDP we will not be able to pay off the Public Debt. The creditors will realize this and things will be very bad for a very long time.

We will probably fall into a Great Depression or Great Inflation and World War. The despots of the World will rise up against us.

Frankly, if our politicians all of whom got us into this cannot roll back spending to 2008 I am ready for the Gandhi Style Demonstations. None of the politicians have my respect.

[PonyUP]

You got me there, bubba. :o

Which one was it that said, "I did not have sex with that woman"?

Or the one that said he was not illegally selling weapons to Iran to raise money for the contras

Or the one that said he had nothing to do with Watergate

Or the one that told us to read his lips, then raised taxes

Point to any president, and you can find a lie. They are politicians, they lie for a living.

[duhtroll]

Yeah, no other president has philandered.

Frankly, I don't care if the President screws goats. He has the hardest job in the world and as long as he isn't screwing goats when he should be working, I am OK with that.

No matter what any current or future president does, people will hate him or her.

You want that job? I sure as hell don't.

There is not another job in the world where as many people who have no clue about it, are as ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN they know better how to do the same job. ;)


You got me there, bubba. :o

Which one was it that said, "I did not have sex with that woman"?

[Bluerauder]

Frankly, I don't care if the President screws goats. ;)

I would rather that he screw goats instead of screwing us. :P

Don't you think that the goat thing ^^^^^ reflects on his judgement and his decision making abilities? Not to mention other character virtues.

Your right, I wouldn't want the job .... but I really don't think that it is the hardest job in the world. That honor probably goes to any Army or Marine Corps Sergeant patrolling "Death Valley" in Afghanistan wondering whether he should order 10 meals or only 5 for tonight's dinner.

[Fosters]

This has been a very interesting discussion. Lots of people without a clue offering their perspective on how to fix this major problem. I suspect that is a lot of what goes on in Congress and probably why a solution continues to elude us. So, I thought that I would chime in with my :twocents:

CBT’s statement above ^^^^^^^^ is about the most rationale that I’ve seen on the entire subject. “There ain’t no such thing as a ‘Free Lunch’ PERIOD. You get what you pay for. Unfortunately, some of the things that we are paying for … just are not providing the results intended. Bottom Line is that the US is wasting one heck of a lot of money. And most of that waste is located in the so-called “Mandatory Spending”. These accounts are also called “Entitlements”. To many both in and out of Government, this means that those accounts are untouchable. As long as we feel that way, getting the Federal Budget under control is a mission impossible. You cannot balance the entire budget on the back of the Department of Defense. Everything else is just ‘chump change’.

The Elephant in the Room is that just five (5) accounts make up 79% of the entire Federal Budget. Those accounts are Social Security, Other Entitlements (Welfare, WIC, UB, Section 8a, etc), Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. Add in Interest on the Debt and you are at 84%. If you are serious about cutting spending, those are the accounts that you MUST reduce. Everything else is nibbling around the edges.

I understand that you must pay for the services and infrastructure that supports and builds the country. I also understand that National Defense is critical to the safety and security of US citizens. Taxes are the way we pay those bills.

I pay taxes. In fact, I pay a boatload of taxes. I don’t mind paying for programs that work. Pissing money away or just wasting it is really what gives me cause to say ‘Enough is Enough”.

Medicare Fraud and waste is estimated at $60-80 Billion per year. That’s 15%. I suspect Medicaid Fraud and abuse is at a similar level or maybe even higher (That’s another $44 Billion in waste). Failed programs under “Other Mandatory” – add another $86 Billion in waste. The Section 8a program, also known as the Housing Voucher Program is a total bust. 95% of its recipients fail to transition within the 5 year timeframe. Putting them into homes that they will NEVER be able to afford is just cruel. Fraud and abuse also infects Social Security but maybe at a lower level of about ½ that above. Even so, there’s another $52 Billion. Just in those accounts, there is probably a total of $252 Billion just in Fraud/Waste. One-quarter of a Trillion dollars PER YEAR. Of course, getting to it won’t happen over night. But you have to start somewhere, sometime …… Its about time we start.

Pony Up suggested cutting Defense and finding efficiencies in military training. Another said to get rid of bases in Europe (you do realize that most of them ARE CLOSED). Others have said get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I would rather see the fight take place ‘over there’ than in the streets of Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York ……. Or Sioux Falls. You get the picture.

The ONLY way to get any appreciable savings in the military is to cut Force Structure. How many Combat Brigades do you think is enough to keep your ass safe at home? How many Carrier Groups? Air Wings? Marine Divisions? It may come as a surprise to some that the US Army is 30% smaller than it was during Operation Desert Storm in 1990. It is about half the size of what it was during Vietnam and about one-quarter of what it was during WW II and Korea. The other Armed Services have taken even deeper cuts. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) have sized the force to meet the missions that it is assigned. According to the military experts, it is the right size for the mission. Cut training ….. yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Cut Force Structure? Not without changing the mission or cutting some of the requirements. Today’s force is on the ragged edge and weary of 10 years of war. Some are on their 5th or 6th deployment in that time frame. The operational tempo is unreal. Advocates of further cuts there just want to put more burden onto the backs of the troops. Sure its an option; but it ain’t smart.

Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Well we are already pulling out of the first. Our enemies are rooted in the second. Where would you rather fight them? The fight will exist …. We are just contemplating the location.

Maybe DoD can find 10% to throw in the savings pot by cutting programs, cutting staff, finding efficiencies, etc. So, add another $66 Billion into the pot. Probably not much more there without hurting RDTE, Modernization and Readiness.

Yeah, the other agencies can kick in some more …. But it really won’t be much. Even abolishing the Department of Education (which really doesn’t fund the schools you know) will contribute only a drop in the bucket. Schools are primarily funded by cities, counties and states. Fed contribution is negligible.

So, there you have it at about $318 Billion plus in budget reductions that could have been made in FY10 and every year thereafter. Easier said than done. Somebody’s gotta grow a set and get it done. Otherwise, we’ll be sliding down the tubes pretty soon now.

Well put. Only thing I would add to that, drug testing for any kind of government handout. Social security, welfare, section 8, foodstamps, now federally sponsored umemployment benefits, etc. And the recipient would have to pay for the test, so it doesn't cost the government anymore money. If the working class has to bear the brunt of all government increases, the recipients at least can prove that they're worth our money. If you do drugs, you don't need my money to pay for your food, medication, house, or if you're in Massachusetts, car.

[CBT]

Yeah, no other president has philandered.

Frankly, I don't care if the President screws goats. He has the hardest job in the world and as long as he isn't screwing goats when he should be working, I am OK with that.

No matter what any current or future president does, people will hate him or her.

You want that job? I sure as hell don't.

There is not another job in the world where as many people who have no clue about it, are as ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN they know better how to do the same job. ;)

I'd love to have it. I'd have the southern border sealed before you could say "2 beef burrito's, please", and then arm it with all the troops that are currently overseas involved in any wars. Then I'd take all the unemployed folks and ship them to farms to "do the jobs Americans won't do", then outsource our prisons to China, and bring back manufacturing. Then turn the unused prisons into dorms for welfare folks who can't pick produce. Let them have battle royals everyday and sell subscriptions to it on cable t.v., and also I would legalize smoking pot, but outlaw eating it. And all weed would have to come from Canada :canada:, that way those lazy bums will have something to do besides play hockey all day :D. Also, that border would have to be sealed so politicians cannot escape the wrath of CBT by trying to leave the country. I'd make the national beverage PBR. :flag:

[Bluerauder]

I'd love to have it. I'd have the southern border sealed before you could say "2 beef burrito's, please", and then arm it with all the troops that are currently overseas involved in any wars. Then I'd take all the unemployed folks and ship them to farms to "do the jobs Americans won't do", then outsource our prisons to China, and bring back manufacturing. Then turn the unused prisons into dorms for welfare folks who can't pick produce. Let them have battle royals everyday and sell subscriptions to it on cable t.v., and also I would legalize smoking pot, but outlaw eating it. And all weed would have to come from Canada :canada:, that way those lazy bums will have something to do besides play hockey all day :D. Also, that border would have to be sealed so politicians cannot escape the wrath of CBT by trying to leave the country. I'd make the national beverage PBR. :flag:

So are you gonna set up a site to accept campaign contributions? ;)

CASEY FOR PRESIDENT !!!

[CBT]

So are you gonna set up a site to accept campaign contributions? ;)

CASEY FOR PRESIDENT !!!
I am running on the Panther Platform, badda bing, thanks I'll be here all week!

[Bluerauder]

Something to think about …..

A lot of people turn almost immediately to Defense Spending when it comes to making budgets cuts in Federal Spending. Despite far more lucrative targets like fraud and waste in “Mandatory Accounts’ as I mentioned above … many in the public view military procurement as a big target. They still remember the $600 toilet seat and $3000 coffeemaker examples. Truth is that really isn’t a big target. Here’s why using the FY11 Budget Submission.

DoD Base Budget $552.8 Billion
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) $159.8 Billion ($3.07 Billion per week as CBT states)
Total DoD Budget Authority $712.1 Billion

Where Does It Go?

Military Personnel (Salaries, etc) $158.8 Billion
Operations & Maintenance (O&M)(Infrastructure, Utilities, spare parts, etc) $317.9 Billion
Procurement (everything from ships and tanks to radios and computers) $137.5 Billion
RDTE (Research & Development) $76.7 Billion
Military Construction (new buildings, upgrades, roads, etc.) $18.2 Billion
Family Housing (on-base quarters and programs) $1.8 Billion
Other $1.2 Billion

How the Base Budget of $552.8 Billion is Distributed among the Services

Army $141.7 Billion
Navy/Marine Corps $160.3 Billion (the USMC falls under the US Navy for budget purposes)
Air Force $149.8 Billion
DoD-Wide $100.8 Billion

Strength Totals in FY11 Budget

Army 547,000
Navy 324,000
Marine Corps 202,000
Air Force 332,000
Active Guard & Reserve 78,000
Civilian 752,000

And What Do You Get?

Army 45 Active and 28 Reserve Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and associated support brigades
Navy 11 Aircraft Carrier Groups, 29 Amphibious Warfare ships, and associated fleet
Marine Corps 27 Active and 9 Reserve Infantry Battalions and associated support
Air Force 32 Active and 28 Reserve Fighter Squadrons, 96 Bombers, and associated support

Fully 2/3 of the Defense Budget ($476.7 Billion) is in the Military Personnel and the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) accounts. The only way to achieve any real savings in DoD is to reduce force structure which is the driver for both Military Personnel and O&M costs.

Sure you can trim Procurement costs or R&D costs. However, we have been doing that for years. All of the services have delayed procurements of new ships, new aircraft, new tanks and fighting vehicles. At some point the delay will catch up to us. It is already forcing higher than normal maintenance and repair costs. The M1 Abrams tank is now 30 years old. The M2/M3 Bradley is about 25 years old. Service Life Extension programs will only go so far until these basic platforms just can’t make it any longer. The B-52 bomber has been in service for the past 50 years. It is now on its 10th or 11th upgrade. I forget. How old is the F-14, F-15, and F-18 fighter planes. Didn’t the F-22 and F-35 get cancelled? Anyone care to name the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers and when they were built?

Whether we are in Iraq or Afghanistan is a National Policy decision. Since we ARE there, this is the budget that supports it. Sure the wars can be cancelled and we can bring everyone home and eliminate their position. We can shrink the size of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and ……

However, we as a country have never been really good at predicting the future. After every war to date, we continued to shrink the defense force until someone thought that we were weak enough to attack. Or weak enough not to be effective. At that point, the USA had to scramble to replace neglected or outdated forces and train a ******** of new recruits.

History says that we need to maintain a strong base core fighting force.

Can we save a little? Yeah, maybe some. But not a whole hell of a lot.

And that’s my thoughts on Why the Defense Budget should not be the 1st target of budget cutters and bean counters.

[CBT]

Anyone care to name the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers and when they were built?



Too easy! :D

[Mr. Man]

Where's the USCG in your budget?

[Haggis]

Where's the USCG in your budget?

Or the Public Health Service?

Name the seven uniformed services.

[PonyUP]

So are you gonna set up a site to accept campaign contributions? ;)

CASEY FOR PRESIDENT !!!

Yeah!!!!, Wait, does that mean we all have to become gay?????

[kernie]

I don't think the USA should cut any defence spending at all, it's the offence spending that needs to be cut.

;)

[CBT]

I don't think the USA should cut any defence spending at all, it's the offence spending that needs to be cut.

;)

lol, kernie! sometimes we pick on you in these threads but you say some of the best stuff :beer:

[1 Bad Merc]

We can start by closing our bases in Western Europe. Do we really need to be a full blown participant in Nato? Seems most of the aircraft and troop transportation comes from us already-other European countries need to step up and take more responsibility. We have let them get away with us footing the bill for their protection for too long now. I dont think Russia is the big threat that it used to be and besides the battleground is changing to more limited type of engagements.

[sailsmen]

Yeah!!!!, Wait, does that mean we all have to become gay?????

If so can we become a gay who is celebutt?

[1 Bad Merc]

It's the celery that tickles......

[tbone]

I don't think the USA should cut any defence spending at all, it's the offence spending that needs to be cut.

;)

Of course you don't, because then Canada would actually have to contribute its fair share in defending itself.

[Bluerauder]

Where's the USCG in your budget?

US Coast Guard is not part of the Department of Defense (DoD). It is budgeted under the Department of Transportation. In times of war, it comes under the operational control of the US Navy.


Or the Public Health Service?

The Public Health Service (PHS) is part of Health & Human Services.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Veterans Administration (VA) are also not under the Department of Defense and have their own budgets.


We can start by closing our bases in Western Europe. Do we really need to be a full blown participant in Nato?

Most of the bases/installations in Europe are already closed. When I left Germany in November 1989 we had about 200,000 troops in Europe. The total today is less than 50,000 with some deployed to other locations. If you were ever based in Germany, you would recognize that most of the installations have been turned back to the German government.

As far as participation in NATO goes, that's a political decision that reflects support for our allies. How much do you think getting out of NATO would save? $10 Million??? Big deal.


I would just like the U.S. Goverment to take the 1.6 Billion dollars we give to Egypt's military (obviously bribing them to leave Israel alone) and take 360-380 million of that money and give 1 Million dollars to every man, women and child in the U.S. This would stimulate the economy and relieve alot of hardships that people are facing now. Now this is just the money going to Egypt -what would happen if we reduced all other foreign aid the same amount! Eureka -we have found alot of extra money to pay down the debt!

This is not rocket science folks-most people have no idea how much we subsidize the rest of the world. If they really knew the costs to bribe our enemies -people would be physically sick.

You're the guy who wants to give away $360 Trillion and save money right??? How's them rockets coming along? :rolleyes:

[kernie]

Of course you don't, because then Canada would actually have to contribute its fair share in defending itself.

Oh for crying out loud tbone, give the Archie Bunker stupidity a rest, will ya?

"You're the guy who wants to give away $360 Trillion and save money right??? How's them rockets coming along? :rolleyes:"[/QUOTE]

Now that thar is funny!

:beer:

[tbone]

Oh for crying out loud tbone, give the Archie Bunker stupidity a rest, will ya?

"You're the guy who wants to give away $360 Trillion and save money right??? How's them rockets coming along? :rolleyes:"


Easy Francis.:lol:

What are you talking about?:confused: I was the one that corrected the ignoramous.

[tbone]

360-380 million dollars equals 1 million for every citizen of the United States!!?????. There are 360-380 people in the entire country? That would actually be about $1.30 for every person, enough to buy a McDouble. Is this more of Obama's "fuzzy math"?

There are 308 million people in this country. To give each one 1 million dollars, we would need $308,000,000,000,000. That's 308 TRILLION
DOLLARS, which is more money than exists in the ENTIRE WORLD! Apparently it is rocket science.

I choose to earn a living, not sit around waiting for handouts.

Earth to kernie?

[tbone]

Oh for crying out loud tbone, give the Archie Bunker stupidity a rest, will ya?

"You're the guy who wants to give away $360 Trillion and save money right??? How's them rockets coming along? :rolleyes:"

Now that thar is funny!

:beer:[/QUOTE]

You insult my country. I insult yours and you cry foul.:bigcry:

[kernie]

Now that thar is funny!

:beer:

You insult my country. I insult yours and you cry foul.:bigcry:[/QUOTE]

Well somewhere along in your logic ya lost me, but whatever.

[Bluerauder]

Now that thar is funny!

:beer:

You insult my country. I insult yours and you cry foul.:bigcry:





You insult my country. I insult yours and you cry foul.:bigcry:

Well somewhere along in your logic ya lost me, but whatever.

Both of you guys ^^^^^^ have gotta learn how to use the "Quote" function. :rolleyes:

[kernie]

Ya, my bad, ithink, lol.

[tbone]

You insult my country. I insult yours and you cry foul.:bigcry:

Well somewhere along in your logic ya lost me, but whatever.[/QUOTE]



You imply that the USA is an agressor nation. I stated that Canada does not pay its fair share for its own defense. You then compare my intellect to Archie Bunker and insinuate that I made the dumb comment about giving away money. That, in my book is crying foul.

The Archie clip was intended for comic relief.

[duhtroll]

CBT for President?

Maybe of the Women's Rotary.

PBR is white trash beer, BTW. I know because my grandparents ran a tavern in the QC Belgian Ghetto in the 50s-70s.

[SC Cheesehead]

CBT for President?

Maybe of the Women's Rotary.

PBR is white trash beer, BTW. I know because my grandparents ran a tavern in the QC Belgian Ghetto in the 50s-70s.

Hey, you're getting personal now! ;)

If I had a buck for every PBR consumed over the years; well let's just say I'd be comfortably well off... :D

[PonyUP]

[/QUOTE]
The Archie clip was intended for comic relief.[/QUOTE]

I'm a dem, and I found that ***** funny.

That was back when you could have a character like Archie Bunker, would never happen today. Imagine if they tried to make Blazing Saddles today, would never happen.

We use to be tough in a America, we have now turned into Politically Correct, Metrosexual Douche's.

We all need to stop being so hyper sensitive, myself included. :beer:

[1 Bad Merc]

You're the guy who wants to give away $360 Trillion and save money right??? How's them rockets coming along? :rolleyes:


Wow.....hope you never make a mistake in your info -because I know one person who will be reminding you! :eek:

[1 Bad Merc]

Easy Francis.:lol:

What are you talking about?:confused: I was the one that corrected the ignoramous.


Man -one mistake and I am an ignoramus now-HUH! Go _uck yourself!

[Bluerauder]

Wow.....hope you never make a mistake in your info -because I know one person who will be reminding you! :eek:

OK Thanks for the Head's Up ..... ;)

[PonyUP]

And time to throw a IBTL, we have gotten off topic, and way too sensitive on this thread, so.......

Back to the Budget. There's a thought process that Obama's budget may be intentionally aimed to shut down the government to gain political gain so that he has something to blame on Republicans.

If that's the case, it would be incredibly stupid. Though I am interested to see what the Republican's in the House create, Boehnor was on Fox news last night, and gave a really good interview. I liked a lot of what he was saying, and he didn't cry.

But seriously I liked what he was saying, I can't remember if I saw it on O'reilly or Hannity (had it on while I was cleaning the house) but I recommend looking it up, it was a good interview.

[kernie]

You imply that the USA is an agressor nation. I stated that Canada does not pay its fair share for its own defense. You then compare my intellect to Archie Bunker and insinuate that I made the dumb comment about giving away money. That, in my book is crying foul.

The Archie clip was intended for comic relief.[/QUOTE]

Imply...lol, ummm, let me be a little more clear, the USA is an aggressive country, lol, can you name me a more aggressive country? lol.

Canada is probably average in military spending, whatever.

:beer:

[PonyUP]

You imply that the USA is an agressor nation. I stated that Canada does not pay its fair share for its own defense. You then compare my intellect to Archie Bunker and insinuate that I made the dumb comment about giving away money. That, in my book is crying foul.

The Archie clip was intended for comic relief.

Imply...lol, ummm, let me be a little more clear, the USA is an aggressive country, lol, can you name me a more aggressive country? lol.

Canada is probably average in military spending, whatever.

:beer:[/QUOTE]

More aggressive nations
North Korea
Iran
Israel
Iraq
Many countries in Africa
Columbia
Mexico

Many of these lack our size, but you can bet if they had our military, that they would invade anything that moves.
Up until our current wars, the United States has never been the aggressor, we were always reacting to either allied treaties or in our national interest.

Why did we fail in Vietnam? we fought a humanatarian war, to scared of innocent casualties, we limited bombing in North Vietnam. Why did the Gulf war end prematurely, again innocent victims.

If you are going to engage in a war, you fight to win it, you declare war on a nation, and your objective is to eliminate the enemy. We have been fighting humantarian wars aimed at limiting death toll on innocent people. We lead the way on banning political assassinations. If you ask me, we haven't been aggressive enough.

Nowadays, we warn you for weeks that we are coming, then we begin bombing. Hardly seems aggressive. I submit in our current wars, if we didnt give any warning, bombed the hell out of it, followed up to clean up, both wars would have been over years ago. But no, we avoided bombing strategic military objectives, because they were in schools, or churches, we fought with rules.

Doesn't seem to aggressive to me, seems responsible by a responsible nation.

[kernie]

:beer:[/QUOTE]

More aggressive nations
North Korea
Iran
Israel
Iraq
Many countries in Africa
Columbia
Mexico

Many of these lack our size, but you can bet if they had our military, that they would invade anything that moves.
Up until our current wars, the United States has never been the aggressor, we were always reacting to either allied treaties or in our national interest.

Why did we fail in Vietnam? we fought a humanatarian war, to scared of innocent casualties, we limited bombing in North Vietnam. Why did the Gulf war end prematurely, again innocent victims.

If you are going to engage in a war, you fight to win it, you declare war on a nation, and your objective is to eliminate the enemy. We have been fighting humantarian wars aimed at limiting death toll on innocent people. We lead the way on banning political assassinations. If you ask me, we haven't been aggressive enough.

Nowadays, we warn you for weeks that we are coming, then we begin bombing. Hardly seems aggressive. I submit in our current wars, if we didnt give any warning, bombed the hell out of it, followed up to clean up, both wars would have been over years ago. But no, we avoided bombing strategic military objectives, because they were in schools, or churches, we fought with rules.

Doesn't seem to aggressive to me, seems responsible by a responsible nation.[/QUOTE]



Wow, your list is laughable, whatever, over and out.

[SC Cheesehead]

kernie, you seriously don't consider any of the nations that Brad listed as aggressive?

[PonyUP]

kernie, you seriously don't consider any of the nations that Brad listed as aggressive?

No kidding, there is no more corrupt government group than the Federalies. Imagine North Korea with an army our size, south Korea, japan, and all the surrounding countries would be a memory. Iran, the same thing. and for crying out loud, Israel has started as much crap as they have been the victim of. So it must be nice to live in your world Kernie, where everyone is in touch with their feelings, and no one is aggressive. Because if you think North Korea is less aggressive than we are, I fear you may have a very nieve view of the world.

[CBT]

CBT for President?

Maybe of the Women's Rotary.

PBR is white trash beer, BTW. I know because my grandparents ran a tavern in the QC Belgian Ghetto in the 50s-70s.

What's the womans rotary. sounds like a kamasutra position.

[Bluerauder]

Imagine North Korea with an army our size, south Korea, japan, and all the surrounding countries would be a memory.

Here's some news .... North Korea's Army is almost twice that of the USA. In fact, we are 6th on the list.

Top Ten Armies of the World (by Strength)

1. China -- 1,600,000
2. India – 1,100,000
3. North Korea – 950,000
4. South Korea – 560,000
5. Pakistan – 550,000
6. USA – 547,000
7. Vietnam – 412,000
8. Turkey – 402,000
9. Iraq – 375,000
10. Russia – 321,000

If assessed by Quality (i.e Manpower,Technology, Firepower, Training, Resouces, etc.) the list falls out like this .... As in OTHER things .... size matters but what counts most is what you do with it. It costs money (R&D and Procurement) to stay on top. And the people and operations must be resourced too.

1. USA
2. China
3. Germany
4. India
5. France
6. Russia
7. UK
8. Italy
9. Israel
10. Pakistan

[Fosters]

If assessed by Quality (i.e Manpower,Technology, Firepower, Training, Resouces, etc.) the list falls out like this .... As in OTHER things .... size matters but what counts most is what you do with it.

5. France
6. Russia
7. UK
8. Italy
9. Israel
10. Pakistan

Uhh... You sure about that #5? :o

[Haggis]

Because if you think North Korea is less aggressive than we are, I fear you may have a very nieve view of the world.

How many countries has N. Korea invaded in the last 10-11 yrs and overthrew their government? And still has troops there?

[Bluerauder]

Uhh... You sure about that #5? :o

The list seems to vary based on what factors you consider .....

However, this may also be considered ..... "As of 2009, the French Armed Forces have the third highest expenditure of any military in the world, as well as the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, behind only the United States and Russia."

Maybe they were dropped from 3rd to 5th based on Leadership potential and past record. ;)

[PonyUP]

How many countries has N. Korea invaded in the last 10-11 yrs and overthrew their government? And still has troops there?

Probably only because they don't have the money and the quality army to sustain it. I suspect China curbs a lot of North Korea's desire to do things. But if there weren't larger super powers (USA and China) that would get involved, North Korea would invade everywhere they could. Just because they Haven't invaded anyone for 10 years, I wouldn't say means they are less aggressive

[Haggis]

Probably only because they don't have the money and the quality army to sustain it. I suspect China curbs a lot of North Korea's desire to do things. But if there weren't larger super powers (USA and China) that would get involved, North Korea would invade everywhere they could. Just because they Haven't invaded anyone for 10 years, I wouldn't say means they are less aggressive

But, we are more aggressive, because we have the military might and will use it no matter the cost.

[kernie]

PonyUP, i'm in shock at your thinking, i keep thinking you are joking. Fox news isn't capable of matching your delusional thinking. Mexico and Columbia are more aggressive that the USA? Let's not even start on counting innocent civilians or number of invasions.

BTW, the word humanitarian means dropping food, not bombs.

Wow, just wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufcSskWteiI&feature=related

[PonyUP]

PonyUP, i'm in shock at your thinking, i keep thinking you are joking. Fox news isn't capable of matching your delusional thinking. Mexico and Columbia are more aggressive that the USA? Let's not even start on counting innocent civilians or number of invasions.

BTW, the word humanitarian means dropping food, not bombs.

Wow, just wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufcSskWteiI&feature=related

Well keep in mind, I said excluding our current conflicts. Point to me a time (Excluding the current middle east) where we started a war, where we invaded a country without provocation or due to alliances or in the interest of national security.
You only think the Mexico and Columbia aren't aggressive, because they haven't invaded anyone, that's only because they lack the ability and the financing. Ever travel anywhere in Mexico outside of tourist locations? You will see the aggressiveness on display. Not to mention that in both countries, the drug lords rule the day, but I'm sure they aren't aggressive.

Ask yourself this, transplant any of the leaders of the countries I listed, and make them the ruler of the USA, what do you think they would do?

Answer that question honestly, and I think you'll understand where I am coming from

[SC Cheesehead]

^^^^^ Good point, bubba ^^^^^

It doesn't have to be military aggression to make an aggressive country.

[kernie]

Well keep in mind, I said excluding our current conflicts.

Oh ok, my bad, we won't count the thousands, perhaps according to some, hundreds of thousands of innocent arabs who died, but you gave them notice right? :shake:


"You only think the Mexico and Columbia aren't aggressive, because they haven't invaded anyone, that's only because they lack the ability and the financing."


In thier own niebourhoods these countries are capable, umm, no wars, none, ziltch.


"Ever travel anywhere in Mexico outside of tourist locations? You will see the aggressiveness on display. Not to mention that in both countries, the drug lords rule the day, but I'm sure they aren't aggressive."

Drug lords? really? You mean those nasties that supply the druggies in Canada and America? What has lawlessness in a particular place have to do with this subject?


"Ask yourself this, transplant any of the leaders of the countries I listed, and make them the ruler of the USA, what do you think they would do?
Answer that question honestly, and I think you'll understand where I am coming from"

I don't know, do you? Probably not what you seem to think.

I'm done with this subject and i'm disapointed that someone whom i thought represented reasonable thinking thinks this way.

[tbone]

Man -one mistake and I am an ignoramus now-HUH! Go _uck yourself!

Pretty big mistake.

Ditto.

[tbone]

PonyUP, i'm in shock at your thinking, i keep thinking you are joking. Fox news isn't capable of matching your delusional thinking. Mexico and Columbia are more aggressive that the USA? Let's not even start on counting innocent civilians or number of invasions.

BTW, the word humanitarian means dropping food, not bombs.

Wow, just wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufcSskWteiI&feature=related

If you and other Liberals like you had your way, the USA would have done nothing after 911. Then the terrorists would have been emboldened and God only knows what would have happened. In this respect, the USA HAD to be aggressive. Also, I'm so sick of Canadians second guessing the US while at the same time hiding under our military skirt like scared babies. And then using the money you save for your own defense to help fund your socialistic "utopia" of free everything just for having a heartbeat. You can keep it. We WORK here.

[PonyUP]

"

I don't know, do you? Probably not what you seem to think.

I'm done with this subject and i'm disapointed that someone whom i thought represented reasonable thinking thinks this way.


Kernie, just because we disagree on something, doesn't mean it's unreasonable thinking, we feel diffeent on a subject that's all. I think every country that has an army has a certain amount of aggression, it's how responsible you are with that aggression that sets you apart. Would you go as far to say that we have been irresponsible?

We are involved in the most conflicts I think largely because it is our responsibility as the only true super power left that would be willing to do anything. So let's ask this, if we allow things to go unchecked across the world and just keep our troops at home, what do you think happens? As mentioned before history repeats itself. We didn't get involved in World War II until we were attacked, but had we not gotten involved, who knows how bad it could have gotten.

Kernie it's okay to disagree, I don't think at anytime we made it personal towards each other, we are having a discussion, whihc is what this site is about. :beer:

[kernie]

If you and other Liberals like you had your way, the USA would have done nothing after 911. Then the terrorists would have been emboldened and God only knows what would have happened. In this respect, the USA HAD to be aggressive. Also, I'm so sick of Canadians second guessing the US while at the same time hiding under our military skirt like scared babies. And then using the money you save for your own defense to help fund your socialistic "utopia" of free everything just for having a heartbeat. You can keep it. We WORK here.
You are a moron, not worthy of debating.

[SC Cheesehead]

:popcorn:http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/images/smilies/hali_olutta.gif:popcorn:

[kernie]

:popcorn:http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/images/smilies/hali_olutta.gif:popcorn:
How do i get into these things?

LOL.

[SC Cheesehead]

How do i get into these things?

LOL.

They're only availalbe to Conservative residents of the US, sorry... ;)

:jk:

When you click on "Reply" you should get a text box that pops up, with a palette of smilies directly to the right of it. Just click on the one(s) you want and they'll paste into your message.

Or, you can cut and paste out of the following link:
http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/misc.php?do=showsmilies

[PonyUP]

They're only availalbe to Conservative residents of the US, sorry... ;)

:jk:

When you click on "Reply" you should get a text box that pops up, with a palette of smilies directly to the right of it. Just click on the one(s) you want and they'll paste into your message.

Or, you can cut and paste out of the following link:
http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/misc.php?do=showsmilies

I think he meant the debates Rex, but Kernie, it only happens because you are passionate about what you believe, that's the way it should be. Plus you're in Canada, it's frickin cold up there this time of year, that will certainly have an effect on your mood. :beer:

[tbone]

You are a moron, not worthy of debating.


Riiiiiiiight.........

Truth is a b****.

[kernie]

I think he meant the debates Rex, but Kernie, it only happens because you are passionate about what you believe, that's the way it should be. Plus you're in Canada, it's frickin cold up there this time of year, that will certainly have an effect on your mood. :beer:

I will close with this, 18 Saudi's armed with boxknives committing a horrible, horrible crime should not have led to the carnage that followed.

Yes i am passionate, along with a big mouth and a ferriner to boot!

Oh well.

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

I will close with this, 18 Saudi's armed with boxknives committing a horrible, horrible crime should not have led to the carnage that followed.

Yes i am passionate, along with a big mouth and a ferriner to boot!

Oh well.

:beer:

Using that logic, the Japanese pilots, flying Zeros, that bombed Pearl Harbor, committing an act of unprovoked hostility, "should not have led to the carnage that followed."

BTW, the action to which you spoke wasn't a CRIME, it was an act of TERRORISM. Big difference.

[kernie]

Using that logic, the Japanese pilots, flying Zeros, that bombed Pearl Harbor, committing an act of unprovoked hostility, "should not have led to the carnage that followed."

BTW, the action to which you spoke wasn't a CRIME, it was an act of TERRORISM. Big difference.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was clearly an act of war, the attack on 9/11 wasn't. Japan, a country attacked the USA, clearly war, Bin Laden? The Bush family's friends son, funny how he is still out there, not the same, not even close. Take it out on Iraq? Call it what you will, i'm gonna keep my views to myself.

[tbone]

The Japanese had not declared war on the US when they attacked. Therefore it was an act of terrorism, and of cowardice.

Does anyone have any idea of how many horrific acts are stopped by ours and other intelligence forces every single day that they don't tell us about? Can you imagine if they told us of nuclear threats that were narrowly averted? Panic would ensue. We don't live in Disneyland. The sooner our liberal "friends" understand that our enemies hate us and want to kill every last non-Muslim in the world, the faster we can get down to business and restore peace and order in the world.

[PonyUP]

I will close with this, 18 Saudi's armed with boxknives committing a horrible, horrible crime should not have led to the carnage that followed.

Yes i am passionate, along with a big mouth and a ferriner to boot!

Oh well.

:beer:

Kernie, don't you think this act of terrorism was also an act of war, i.e. declaring it. Al Queda is an army without a nation, they were the rebels that fought the Soviets with the weapons and training that we gave them. In the end, like so many regimes we have tried to build, they turned on us. But I would say that 9/11 was a declaration of war, thus justifing our entry into Afghanistan, especially since they were supported and protected by the Taliban.
Now entry into Iraq, we could debate this all day. personally I think we had no cause to go in, other than to cleanup the job we didn't finish a decade earlier. But I'm sure there are people that fall on the other side of this. But I think Afghanistan is a little more clear cut, and it very similar to Pearl Harbor in that it was an attack initiating war.
Though if you think about it, they did for a cost of 18 box cutters and plane tickets, and still had the same effect, probably even wors because they attacked citizens and not military targets.

[SC Cheesehead]

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was clearly an act of war, the attack on 9/11 wasn't. Japan, a country attacked the USA, clearly war, Bin Laden? The Bush family's friends son, funny how he is still out there, not the same, not even close. Take it out on Iraq? Call it what you will, i'm gonna keep my views to myself.

kernie, check the definition of jihad.

Might not be a bad idea, bubba; don't think you're going to find a lot of support for them on this particular point.

[PonyUP]

kernie, check the definition of jihad.

Might not be a bad idea, bubba; don't think you're going to find a lot of support for them on this particular point.

Personally, there may not be a lot of support, however I do respect some of Kernies views. I really kind of lie in the middle, my conservative friends certainly have a numer of beliefs that I share with them, as do my liberal friends. And I know this isn't you Rex, but I think we really need to get out of the mindest that all liberals are godless ******'s, they seem to be blamed for everything on this forum, which brings me back to a point I have made time and again. It's not liberals ruining this country, nor is it conservatives, it's the FAR left as well as the FAR right that is making this country a mockery.

In any situation, when you go to extremes, you go to far. The trick, whatever your point of view, is to have an open mind and be willing to engage in debate. You won't always change someones mind, and your mind may not always be changed, but a healthy exchange of ideas is always a good thing.

Thankfully Rex, I know you are always up for that, that is why even as I am a Vikings fan, and you a Packers fan, we are still able to find common ground. :beer:

Can't wait to toast a beer to ya in Kentucky my friend

[SC Cheesehead]

Personally, there may not be a lot of support, however I do respect some of Kernies views. I really kind of lie in the middle, my conservative friends certainly have a numer of beliefs that I share with them, as do my liberal friends. And I know this isn't you Rex, but I think we really need to get out of the mindest that all liberals are godless ******'s, they seem to be blamed for everything on this forum, which brings me back to a point I have made time and again. It's not liberals ruining this country, nor is it conservatives, it's the FAR left as well as the FAR right that is making this country a mockery.

In any situation, when you go to extremes, you go to far. The trick, whatever your point of view, is to have an open mind and be willing to engage in debate. You won't always change someones mind, and your mind may not always be changed, but a healthy exchange of ideas is always a good thing.

Thankfully Rex, I know you are always up for that, that is why even as I am a Vikings fan, and you a Packers fan, we are still able to find common ground. :beer:

Can't wait to toast a beer to ya in Kentucky my friend

I fully agree, that's what separates us from common animals: reason.

That said:

http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_570xN.66155751.jpg

:D:D:D

;)

[kernie]

kernie, check the definition of jihad.

Might not be a bad idea, bubba; don't think you're going to find a lot of support for them on this particular point.-------------

[sailsmen]

Canada has joined the USA in many military operations.

How many hundreds of millions of their own people did the despots of the World murder? How many more would they have murdered if it were not for USA blood spilled in their country? What did we take in return? Land to bury our dead.

[PonyUP]

I fully agree, that's what separates us from common animals: reason.

That said:

http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_570xN.66155751.jpg

:D:D:D

;)

:lol:

Well okay but just this once.

[SC Cheesehead]

:lol:

Well okay but just this once.


There you go, see how easy it is to be reasonable? :D:D

[MIDNITEMARAUDER]

I didn't join this sight to talk politics. Lets discuss the Mercury Marauder. Please!

[SC Cheesehead]

I didn't join this sight to talk politics. Lets discuss the Mercury Marauder. Please!;)

Then don't bother to open these threads...

[LIGHTNIN1]

;)

Then don't bother to open these threads...

Thats what I was thinking.:coffee:

[PonyUP]

;)

Then don't bother to open these threads...

+1, we talk about many things on this site, if we limit it to just the Marauder it would be boring, in this instance, ignorance may be bliss, i'd ignore the threads if you don't wanna talk about it

[guspech750]

I didn't join this sight to talk politics. Lets discuss the Mercury Marauder. Please!
Plain and simple. If you don't like it. Look or read else where. There are plenty of Marauder threads to read.



Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox

[Dr Caleb]

If you and other Liberals like you had your way, the USA would have done nothing after 911. Then the terrorists would have been emboldened and God only knows what would have happened. In this respect, the USA HAD to be aggressive.

Which is of course, why Canada had boots on the ground in Afghanistan on day 1. We successfully defended the Taliban 'home base' with 2500 troops for nearly 10 years, a feat that the US can only accomplish with 10X that number since it took over last year. we've lost a lot of good men and women over there, and some of them I called 'friend'.



Also, I'm so sick of Canadians second guessing the US while at the same time hiding under our military skirt like scared babies.


Of course you don't, because then Canada would actually have to contribute its fair share in defending itself.

Ahh, the old 'we pay to defend you' routine. When will you guys learn it's FUD to try to get you not to emulate a country going right for a change? Your statement may have been true in the 50's and 60's, when the US fronted the cost for the DEW line, but that cost has long been countered with Canada actually operating it for 50 years, and then building the Mid line and Pinetree radar lines that we use to regularly (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/canadian-cf-18-jets-turn-back-two-russian-aircraft-near-northern-border.html) use to intercept (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/02/27/arctic-russia.html) Russian (http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874221.html) bombers to protect your a$$. ;) (just a small sample of incidents too). To once and for all dispell that myth, have a look at the spending per capita for NATO countries, and you'll see we pull our own weight.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_64221.htm?mode=pressrelea se

'Peacekeeping' was the creation of a Canadian Prime Minister to counter the Suez crisis. Which country has been at the forefront of more UN Peacekeeping missions than every other country in the world - combined? Yes, it is true. We actually espouse Humanitarian values, and try to live by them. We defend those who can't do it themselves. We don't bomb them back to the stone age in the process. Another former Canadian Politician also was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for his work on banning landmines. Something the US still refuses to sign.



And then using the money you save for your own defense to help fund your socialistic "utopia" of free everything just for having a heartbeat. You can keep it. We WORK here.

They why is our unemployment rate so much lower than yours?

A little visual aid from the New York Times:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/19/opinion/19blowcht/19blowcht-custom1.jpg

--------------

Now, as for spending - the Province I live in had a similar conundrum about 15 years ago. Too much Debt, too high a deficit. So we cut spending. We cut it till it hurt, then we cut 5% off everything, then everyone took a 10% pay cut.

It sucked. But inside of 10 years, we had NO debt. We have run surpluses fr the last 8 years, excluding 2009 - but we used our savings to cover the deficit. A strange concept, for a state to have a + in the bank account, bu tit can be done!

It will suck for you guys too. Many of the things you think to be 'required' for civilized society will have to be put on hold. But you can do it. It's no different than running household debt. If you need the new car but can't afford it, then you have to eat hamburger instead of sirloin and no going out to restaurants.

[Dr Caleb]

What's the womans rotary. sounds like a kamasutra position.

"How many have died because of the Kama Sutra, as opposed to the Bible?" - Frank Zappa

[PonyUP]

Another former Canadian Politician also was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for his work on banning landmines. Something the US still refuses to sign.

We would sign it in a heartbeat if they would grant us an exception for Korea, the landmines in the DMZ are a necessity, until we are granted an exception we won't sign.

[CBT]

I will close with this, 18 Saudi's armed with boxknives committing a horrible, horrible crime should not have led to the carnage that followed.

Yes i am passionate, along with a big mouth and a ferriner to boot!

Oh well.

:beer:
They came here via Canada if memory serves me correctly. Anyone want to google it? I'm looking at houses to buy in another browser or I would.

[kernie]

They came here via Canada if memory serves me correctly. Anyone want to google it? I'm looking at houses to buy in another browser or I would.

Oh you are just teasing me right?

Tell me you are serious... please...lol.

:beer:

[PonyUP]

They came here via Canada if memory serves me correctly. Anyone want to google it? I'm looking at houses to buy in another browser or I would.

No Case, they actually entered legally by obtaining visa's, they did not illegally cross either of our land boarders but exploited a loop hole in the system to apply for visas, I think they were student visas.

[CBT]

No Case, they actually entered legally by obtaining visa's, they did not illegally cross either of our land boarders but exploited a loop hole in the system to apply for visas, I think they were student visas.
From Canada?

[kernie]

From Canada?

Ha! You are good.

:beer:

[CBT]

Ha! You are good.

:beer:
That's what she said!! :beer:

[tbone]

Which is of course, why Canada had boots on the ground in Afghanistan on day 1. We successfully defended the Taliban 'home base' with 2500 troops for nearly 10 years, a feat that the US can only accomplish with 10X that number since it took over last year. we've lost a lot of good men and women over there, and some of them I called 'friend'.





Ahh, the old 'we pay to defend you' routine. When will you guys learn it's FUD to try to get you not to emulate a country going right for a change? Your statement may have been true in the 50's and 60's, when the US fronted the cost for the DEW line, but that cost has long been countered with Canada actually operating it for 50 years, and then building the Mid line and Pinetree radar lines that we use to regularly (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/canadian-cf-18-jets-turn-back-two-russian-aircraft-near-northern-border.html) use to intercept (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/02/27/arctic-russia.html) Russian (http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874221.html) bombers to protect your a$$. ;) (just a small sample of incidents too). To once and for all dispell that myth, have a look at the spending per capita for NATO countries, and you'll see we pull our own weight.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_64221.htm?mode=pressrelea se

'Peacekeeping' was the creation of a Canadian Prime Minister to counter the Suez crisis. Which country has been at the forefront of more UN Peacekeeping missions than every other country in the world - combined? Yes, it is true. We actually espouse Humanitarian values, and try to live by them. We defend those who can't do it themselves. We don't bomb them back to the stone age in the process. Another former Canadian Politician also was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for his work on banning landmines. Something the US still refuses to sign.



They why is our unemployment rate so much lower than yours?

A little visual aid from the New York Times:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/19/opinion/19blowcht/19blowcht-custom1.jpg

--------------

Now, as for spending - the Province I live in had a similar conundrum about 15 years ago. Too much Debt, too high a deficit. So we cut spending. We cut it till it hurt, then we cut 5% off everything, then everyone took a 10% pay cut.

It sucked. But inside of 10 years, we had NO debt. We have run surpluses fr the last 8 years, excluding 2009 - but we used our savings to cover the deficit. A strange concept, for a state to have a + in the bank account, bu tit can be done!

It will suck for you guys too. Many of the things you think to be 'required' for civilized society will have to be put on hold. But you can do it. It's no different than running household debt. If you need the new car but can't afford it, then you have to eat hamburger instead of sirloin and no going out to restaurants.

1. 2500 troops is not in line with your population. It should be way more.
2. You think a Canandian soldier is worth 10 US ones? I believe you just insulted an awful lot of people and should apologize immediately.
3. The nuclear deterrent is the reason why your country and ours still exists. It cost the US dearly. I highly doubt Canada contributed much if anything to that program.
4. You have less unemployment because you have 1/10 our population and the problems that so many people present. And you don't have issues with minorities. Not a racist comment, just a fact that minorities have extremely high unemployment.
5. So Canadians espouse "Humanitarian values" and Americans don't? Another apology is in order.
6. You quote the New York Times? Don't make me laugh. They are a pathetic joke.

PS How many American companies employ Canadians? How many? The only large company I can think of that is famous and Canadian is Bombardier. That's it.

[ParkRanger]

From the President's Office of Management and Budget
Year Total
Receipts Outlays +/− Inc/Dec
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 7.95%
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 7.41%
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 6.16%
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 7.81%
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 7.41%
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 2.77%
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 9.30%
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 17.94%
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 -1.75%
2011 esti 2,173,700 3,818,819 -1,645,119 10.49%
2012 esti 2,627,449 3,728,686 -1,101,237 -2.36%
Public Debt is the money we actually borrowed from others and must pay back. From the OMB Public Debt as a % of GDP, FY basis;
1960 41%
1964 35%
1968 27%
1972 21%
1976 22%
1980 22%
1884 30%
1988 36%
1992 43%
1996 43%
2000 30%
2004 31%
2008 37%
2010 63%

The following excerpts from the CBO 7-27-10 report
"...a growing level of

federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden

fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence

in the government’s ability to manage its budget,

and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow

at affordable rates.
The exact point at which such a crisis might

occur for the United States is unknown, in part because

the ratio of federal debt to GDP is climbing into unfamiliar

territory
According to the Congressional Budget

Office’s (CBO’s) projections, federal debt held by the

public will stand at 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal

year 2010, having risen from 36 percent at the end of fiscal

year 2007, just before the recession began. In only one

other period in U.S. history—during and shortly after

World War II—has that figure exceeded 50 percent.
Unless offsetting actions

are taken at some point to pay off the additional government

debt accumulated while the economy was weak,

people’s future incomes will tend to be lower than they

otherwise would have been.
To the extent that

additional tax revenues were generated by increasing marginal

tax rates, those rates would discourage work and

saving, further reducing output and incomes
When fiscal crises occur during

recessions, as they often do, such policy changes can

exacerbate the economic downturns—although some

studies suggest that certain types of fiscal austerity programs

tend, at least in some circumstances, to stimulate

economic growth.21

The later that actions are taken to address persistent

budget imbalances, the more severe they will have to be.

CBO’s long-term projections for the federal budget
indicate that an immediate, permanent cut in spending

or increase in revenues equal to about 1 percent of GDP

(relative to the policies assumed for the extended-baseline

scenario) or about 5 percent of GDP (relative to the

policies assumed for the alternative fiscal scenario) would

prevent a net increase in the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio over

the next 25 years. The latter would be equivalent to

roughly 20 percent of all of the government’s noninterest

spending this year."

Yup - no doubt about it - you are the best cut and pasteman I have ever seen.

[sailsmen]

Thank you. I read a lot of CBO, OMB and IMF reports to determine what the average person could easily absorb, cutting and pasting that into one post. I figured out the key figure of the dozens that they refer to is the Public Debt as a percent of our Economy.
I extracted Public Debt as a % of GDP every 4 years from 1960-2010 and I also extracted the income, spending, difference and the % increase/decrease for 10 years. I also extracted excerpts from the CBO report that related to the data in the post.
You can go to the CBO, OMB and IMF websites for the reports. You can also down load many in PDF and XL. I prefer the CBO for the reports and the OMB for the raw data. Don't be intimidated by the reports the Executive Summaries are written for the average person to absorb. Always read the foot notes for the details.

[Dr Caleb]

1. 2500 troops is not in line with your population. It should be way more.

I quite agree, but with all the other peacekeeping missions we are on (Bosnia, Nicaragua, Cypress) that was all we could spare, and some of those took 4 or 5 tours.



2. You think a Canandian soldier is worth 10 US ones? I believe you just insulted an awful lot of people and should apologize immediately.

Your words, so you should.



3. The nuclear deterrent is the reason why your country and ours still exists. It cost the US dearly. I highly doubt Canada contributed much if anything to that program.

Where is it that you get that Uranium from?



4. You have less unemployment because you have 1/10 our population and the problems that so many people present. And you don't have issues with minorities. Not a racist comment, just a fact that minorities have extremely high unemployment.

Percentage is still percentage. And the US numbers are nutorious for only including those people drawing unemployment benefits. Ours include everyone who can work but isn't. And it is racist. If you think Canada doesn't have 'minorities', that is. You might want to research things before flapping your fingers.

We do, and I have to say if I go into a Tim Hortons that employs mostly foreign workers, my order is fast, and completed with a smile. If it's mostly 'locals', it probably won't be fast or correct.



5. So Canadians espouse "Humanitarian values" and Americans don't? Another apology is in order.

Again, your words, not mine. Getting tired jumping to conclusions yet? I love arguments where one assumes things that I am saying, then gets mad at the things they themselves made up.



6. You quote the New York Times? Don't make me laugh. They are a pathetic joke.

How about facts and/or figures proving otherwise? Didn't think so. Or, how about the IMF, who's facts they are? Are they a pathetic joke?



PS How many American companies employ Canadians? How many? The only large company I can think of that is famous and Canadian is Bombardier. That's it.

Not that the question is relevant, but do you own a Blackberry? I don't know why people feel the need to express their lack of knowledge to the entire internet. Take a look at most of your Banks, we seem to be buying them up often.

[sailsmen]

I guarantee you one thing about Canada is when the USA goes down the drain Canada will be going right down with us. We will have that perfect country keeping us company as we swirl round and round.;)
Canada - Public Debt to GDP 82.9% vs USA 58.9%
Canada - Per Capita GDP $39,600 vs USA $47,400.

That's a very high Public Debt to GDP for Canada, Canada maybe showing us the way when we go down the drain.

The CIA World fact book is a good way to compare countries.

[tbone]

I quite agree, but with all the other peacekeeping missions we are on (Bosnia, Nicaragua, Cypress) that was all we could spare, and some of those took 4 or 5 tours.



Your words, so you should.



Where is it that you get that Uranium from?



Percentage is still percentage. And the US numbers are nutorious for only including those people drawing unemployment benefits. Ours include everyone who can work but isn't. And it is racist. If you think Canada doesn't have 'minorities', that is. You might want to research things before flapping your fingers.

We do, and I have to say if I go into a Tim Hortons that employs mostly foreign workers, my order is fast, and completed with a smile. If it's mostly 'locals', it probably won't be fast or correct.



Again, your words, not mine. Getting tired jumping to conclusions yet? I love arguments where one assumes things that I am saying, then gets mad at the things they themselves made up.



How about facts and/or figures proving otherwise? Didn't think so. Or, how about the IMF, who's facts they are? Are they a pathetic joke?



Not that the question is relevant, but do you own a Blackberry? I don't know why people feel the need to express their lack of knowledge to the entire internet. Take a look at most of your Banks, we seem to be buying them up often.


My words? Your words are there for all to read. I like the way you spin everything. Typical socialist liberal tactic. You obviously are jealous of the USA. Too bad for you.

[tbone]

Bombardier and Blackberry. Congratulations.

[kernie]

My words? Your words are there for all to read. I like the way you spin everything. Typical socialist liberal tactic. You obviously are jealous of the USA. Too bad for you.

You are a funny little fellow!

[Dr Caleb]

You are a funny little fellow!

Isn't he! I like the 'spin' angle. And of course, getting mad at his own words.

[Kennyrauder]

in Ontario Canada we are loaded to the nuts with too many school boards.. try 4.. we only need 1. Bilingualism is costings us untold billions every year. A Senate that is totally useless. politicians that only care about the next popularity poll. gov't supply contracts that are very questionable. We have a province that whines all year long that they are being screwed by english canada yet receive over 7 billion in equalization payments every year. we have a lot of crap to get rid of too & that is the province of Quebec.

[kernie]

in Ontario Canada we are loaded to the nuts with too many school boards.. try 4.. we only need 1. Bilingualism is costings us untold billions every year. A Senate that is totally useless. politicians that only care about the next popularity poll. gov't supply contracts that are very questionable. We have a province that whines all year long that they are being screwed by english canada yet receive over 7 billion in equalization payments every year. we have a lot of crap to get rid of too & that is the province of Quebec.

Really, did fox news come to Canada? What channel is it on?

[SC Cheesehead]

Really, did fox news come to Canada? What channel is it on?

Kernie, you've got a fellow Canadian telling it like it is.

As I said in an earlier post, time to come down from that ivory tower, bubba...

[kernie]

Kernie, you've got a fellow Canadian telling it like it is.

As I said in an earlier post, time to come down from that ivory tower, bubba...

Umm, cause that's not the way it is...

Stick the ivory tower stuff you know where.

[SC Cheesehead]

Umm, cause that's not the way it is...

Stick the ivory tower stuff you know where.

So, Kenny's not telling us the truth about economic conditions in his province? :confused:

[kernie]

in Ontario Canada we are loaded to the nuts with too many school boards.. try 4.. we only need 1. Bilingualism is costings us untold billions every year. A Senate that is totally useless. politicians that only care about the next popularity poll. gov't supply contracts that are very questionable. We have a province that whines all year long that they are being screwed by english canada yet receive over 7 billion in equalization payments every year. we have a lot of crap to get rid of too & that is the province of Quebec.


So, Kenny's not telling us the truth about economic conditions in his province? :confused:

Where in his post do you see any talk of "economic conditions".

Little bored today?

[LIGHTNIN1]

Kernie, you've got a fellow Canadian telling it like it is.

As I said in an earlier post, time to come down from that ivory tower, bubba...

You don't need the Comedy Channel when you have liberals.

[Fosters]

You don't need the Comedy Channel when you have liberals.

But if you have the Comedy Channel, you have more liberals. :o

[SC Cheesehead]

Where in his post do you see any talk of "economic conditions".

Little bored today?


in Ontario Canada we are loaded to the nuts with too many school boards.. try 4.. we only need 1. Bilingualism is costings us untold billions every year. A Senate that is totally useless. politicians that only care about the next popularity poll. gov't supply contracts that are very questionable. We have a province that whines all year long that they are being screwed by english canada yet receive over 7 billion in equalization payments every year. we have a lot of crap to get rid of too & that is the province of Quebec.

Dunno, just figured his pointing out concern over billions and billions being spent had something to do with money, and money being an economic (often scarce) resource that typcially impacts supply and demand, decisions on consumer and government opportunity costs, as well as conditions that affect general financial welfare lead me to make that comment.

But on second thought, that was the wrong thing to think, much less say. Canada is the PERECT country with NO economic issues of any kind, and the microcism in which poor Kenny lives is an anomaly, with conditions best ignored, certainly not believed. Carry on.

How's the view up there in the tower? :rolleyes:

[kernie]

Dunno, just figured his pointing out concern over billions and billions being spent had something to do with money, and money being an economic (often scarce) resource that typcially impacts supply and demand, decisions on consumer and government opportunity costs, as well as conditions that affect general financial welfare lead me to make that comment.

But on second thought, that was the wrong thing to think, much less say. Canada is the PERECT country with NO economic issues of any kind, and the microcism in which poor Kenny lives is an anomaly, with conditions best ignored, certainly not believed. Carry on.

How's the view up there in the tower? :rolleyes:

He is complaining about bilingualism {untold billions, lol right} Quebec getting more than thier fair share of the pie, {has a point there}bad politicians {horsepoop}, then finishes with vigor with more shots at Quebec, then he probably has a cigarette...

That's not "economic conditions" that's fox news north.

And, as you well know, our economy is going very well, but thanks for your concern.

[SC Cheesehead]

He is complaining about bilingualism {untold billions, lol right} Quebec getting more than thier fair share of the pie, {has a point there}bad politicians {horsepoop}, then finishes with vigor with more shots at Quebec, then he probably has a cigarette...

That's not "economic conditions" that's fox news north.

And, as you well know, our economy is going very well, but thanks for your concern.


So, Kenny's perspective, because it differs from yours, must be discounted as inaccurate? If Kenny's view is "news north," what shall we term yours? Methinks MSNBC. :rolleyes:

[LIGHTNIN1]

That settles it. I am moving to Canada this week. Just think we have found UTOPIA. A country that is perfect in every way. That has a government with perfect politicians that are honest in every way and do not lie. Politicians that spend every tax dollar like it should be spent. Streets paved with gold. Heaven on earth. A chicken in every pot. I feel so under privileged to be born in this no good country called the USA. Bags are packed.

[SC Cheesehead]

That settles it. I am moving to Canada this week. Just think we have found UTOPIA. A country that is perfect in every way. That has a government with perfect politicians that are honest in every way and do not lie. Politicians that spend every tax dollar like it should be spent. Streets paved with gold. Heaven on earth. A chicken in every pot. I feel so under privileged to be born in this no good country called the USA. Bags are packed.

And bilingual to boot, what's not to love? Et bilingue pour charger, quel est pour ne pas aimer?

[Vortex]

.............................. .....

[SC Cheesehead]

.............................. .....

;)
-------------------

[tbone]

You are a funny little fellow!

Your avatar is perfect for you. Very fitting.

[tbone]

Isn't he! I like the 'spin' angle. And of course, getting mad at his own words.


You wrote them. I don't need to repeat them to prove my point. Everyone knows I'm right and you are wrong. You are an offensive liberal that lies and twists words and situations to suit your agenda.

Do you take the time to change your underwear while you sit there furiously cutting, pasting and typing all day and night? It must be exhausting!

[CBT]

14 pages of fighting amongst ourselves, and I bet no one has tried to make a difference by contacting any of thier elected officials (or at least left a message with thier aide) since this started.

[CBT]

Woops, 15 pages.

[Dr Caleb]

So, Kenny's perspective, because it differs from yours, must be discounted as inaccurate? If Kenny's view is "news north," what shall we term yours? Methinks MSNBC. :rolleyes:

Ooo! The teenager eyeroll! Excellent.

Because Kenny gave his opinion (not fact) on things, and that may agree with yours - should it then be counted as accurate? That is the difference between fact and opinion. Kenny feels billions are spent and wasted on official bilingualism, for which there are no real statistics. It's his opinion, which it neither right nor wrong. It's just not based on anything tangible.

As for the rest, most Canadians are ticked off with Quebec's special treatment because of the excessive number of corrupt whiners in that province. It's not really news to us.

[Dr Caleb]

You wrote them. I don't need to repeat them to prove my point. Everyone knows I'm right and you are wrong. You are an offensive liberal that lies and twists words and situations to suit your agenda.

Do you take the time to change your underwear while you sit there furiously cutting, pasting and typing all day and night? It must be exhausting!


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Ghandi.

When the insulting starts, your failure is complete.

[tbone]

14 pages of fighting amongst ourselves, and I bet no one has tried to make a difference by contacting any of thier elected officials (or at least left a message with thier aide) since this started.


I write to my Congressman and Senators.

Senator Kirk and Congressman Manzullo are good men.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin is a piece.......

[tbone]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Ghandi.

When the insulting starts, your failure is complete.


You're no Ghandi!

Who was the one that started off by insulting the USA's soldiers and the people of the USA?

Who was that?

[SC Cheesehead]

Ooo! The teenager eyeroll! Excellent.

Because Kenny gave his opinion (not fact) on things, and that may agree with yours - should it then be counted as accurate? That is the difference between fact and opinion. Kenny feels billions are spent and wasted on official bilingualism, for which there are no real statistics. It's his opinion, which it neither right nor wrong. It's just not based on anything tangible.

As for the rest, most Canadians are ticked off with Quebec's special treatment because of the excessive number of corrupt whiners in that province. It's not really news to us.

My inference was that Kenny's view was regarded as "the fox news of the north" therefore it offered no credence to kernie. Kenny shared his concerns (obviously as opinions), but as they weren't in sync with kernie's opinion, they were discounted by him.

Look, let's be honest here. Canada's a great country. My parents were Canadian born, 98% of my relatives live in Canada, I've been to Canada to visit as well as to work numerous times, and I like the country; but it's no Utopia. I've paid excessive prices for goods and services up there, in large part to the GST levied. You've got (and tout) universal healthcare, and the system obviously works, but I've also read articles in newspapers from Saskatchewan to New Brunswick, and have discussed concerns that my relatives and other have about Canadian health care issues (rationing, and the difficulty in obtaining timely services for some medical treatment) and the skyrocketing cost of providing health services, which indicate to me that the system is nowhere near perfect. Bottom line, you folks have your issues up there just like we have our issues down here. We're struggling to deal with them, and I believe we are facing a very painful period of reckoning. Facing that reckoning and struggling to deal with the implications is unsettling, and they aren't assuaged by repeated suggestions that life would be good if we (America) just became more like you guys (Canada); that just rankles most of the posters on this board (me, unapologetically, among them). First off, it ain't that simple, and secondly, it's just a little too socialistic an approach for many of us to feel comfortable with.

That said, I agree completely on your perspective relating to Quebec's special treatment. It aligns closely with comments made by my Canadian cousins in the western provinces. Also, FWIW, the only province in which I've not felt welcome is Quebec (especially the Montreal airport).

[tbone]

In Wisconsin, A Sense of Entitlement Imperils Nation

By Michael Goodwin
Published February 23, 2011
| New York Post


The Wisconsin showdown between a determined Republican governor and spoiled public unions is shaping up as a crucial test of state and municipal solvency. But the stakes represent only part of the much larger conflict engulfing America.
The real war is over the entitlement culture itself. And while government spending is the most visible part, the ultimate issues are the character and fate of our nation.
Any serious conversation about American decline must start with the fact that too many of our countrymen have lost the plot about how the United States became the beacon of the free world, the world's largest and the lone superpower.
For those who have no sense or interest in how we got here, it is easy to believe we are immune from the laws of history that inevitably reduce empires to dust.
From that willful ignorance, it's perfectly acceptable to demand pay without work, or, almost as insidious, pay and that dwarf those of your neighbors who foot the bill.

It is also perfectly acceptable to assume that, if you have a house you can't afford, the government -- again, your neighbors -- should be dunned to help you keep it. If your business is failing, the government's deep pockets are there to bail you out, no?
Or if your child can't read, it's not your fault. It's the teacher or the school or the mayor. Any scapegoat will do, as long as it's not you.
This is the noise of the entitlement culture as it plays out every day. It is contagious and so ingrained in how we live and think -- somebody else is to blame and must pay -- that we no longer think twice before demanding total satisfaction and expressing outrage when we don't get it.
We are entitled to it now because we want it, whatever it is. If somebody else has it first, then we have been cheated and are doubly furious.
As for giving it back, or taking less, what are you, a sucker? This is America, man, a free country.
Indeed it is, and that's the problem. We are free to be endlessly selfish, and nobody dares to tell us no.
Certainly, politicians won't do it. The entitlement scam has dominated public life for the better part of 50 years. John F. Kennedy's famous inaugural line of "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turns out to have been the high-water mark of self-restraint.
Pretty much ever since, the "tax eaters" have been multiplying faster than the taxpayers. The balance has tilted so far that the great liberal lights of yesteryear, from FDR to JFK to LBJ, might well look at the Wisconsin unions and wonder what planet they're from. They certainly wouldn't recognize them as Democrats.
How dare the teachers skip school to protest? How dare they get fake doctor's notes to avoid consequences?
Easy -- they're entitled.
Soon, other states will be facing the same choice and, as voters made clear in last year's election, the war over Big Government will be settled in Washington.
It's not a comforting thought. The best politicians have been unable to stop the entitlement culture. Most are happy to stoke the demands for more, more, more as the easiest path to power.
We can't say we weren't warned. Thomas Jefferson (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/thomas-jefferson.htm#r_src=ramp), naturally, foresaw the consequences of unchecked entitlement. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

[SC Cheesehead]

In Wisconsin, A Sense of Entitlement Imperils Nation

By Michael Goodwin
Published February 23, 2011
| New York Post


The Wisconsin showdown between a determined Republican governor and spoiled public unions is shaping up as a crucial test of state and municipal solvency. But the stakes represent only part of the much larger conflict engulfing America.
The real war is over the entitlement culture itself. And while government spending is the most visible part, the ultimate issues are the character and fate of our nation.
Any serious conversation about American decline must start with the fact that too many of our countrymen have lost the plot about how the United States became the beacon of the free world, the world's largest and the lone superpower.
For those who have no sense or interest in how we got here, it is easy to believe we are immune from the laws of history that inevitably reduce empires to dust.
From that willful ignorance, it's perfectly acceptable to demand pay without work, or, almost as insidious, pay and that dwarf those of your neighbors who foot the bill.

It is also perfectly acceptable to assume that, if you have a house you can't afford, the government -- again, your neighbors -- should be dunned to help you keep it. If your business is failing, the government's deep pockets are there to bail you out, no?
Or if your child can't read, it's not your fault. It's the teacher or the school or the mayor. Any scapegoat will do, as long as it's not you.
This is the noise of the entitlement culture as it plays out every day. It is contagious and so ingrained in how we live and think -- somebody else is to blame and must pay -- that we no longer think twice before demanding total satisfaction and expressing outrage when we don't get it.
We are entitled to it now because we want it, whatever it is. If somebody else has it first, then we have been cheated and are doubly furious.
As for giving it back, or taking less, what are you, a sucker? This is America, man, a free country.
Indeed it is, and that's the problem. We are free to be endlessly selfish, and nobody dares to tell us no.
Certainly, politicians won't do it. The entitlement scam has dominated public life for the better part of 50 years. John F. Kennedy's famous inaugural line of "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turns out to have been the high-water mark of self-restraint.
Pretty much ever since, the "tax eaters" have been multiplying faster than the taxpayers. The balance has tilted so far that the great liberal lights of yesteryear, from FDR to JFK to LBJ, might well look at the Wisconsin unions and wonder what planet they're from. They certainly wouldn't recognize them as Democrats.
How dare the teachers skip school to protest? How dare they get fake doctor's notes to avoid consequences?
Easy -- they're entitled.
Soon, other states will be facing the same choice and, as voters made clear in last year's election, the war over Big Government will be settled in Washington.
It's not a comforting thought. The best politicians have been unable to stop the entitlement culture. Most are happy to stoke the demands for more, more, more as the easiest path to power.
We can't say we weren't warned. Thomas Jefferson (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/thomas-jefferson.htm#r_src=ramp), naturally, foresaw the consequences of unchecked entitlement. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."


"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

[CBT]

I love Canada, I was treated very well when I was there. :beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

I love Canada, I was treated very well when I was there. :beer:

Betcha weren't in Quebec... ;)

[CBT]

Betcha weren't in Quebec... ;)
Nova Scotia:canada:. The USS George Washington :flag:laid seige to the bars and tried to drink the town dry for a few days straight. We eventually withdrew, with our heads down. Not out of shame, but due to the hangovers. I think we came pretty damn close to doing it, tho! Great times!:beer:

[Dr Caleb]

You're no Ghandi!

Who was the one that started off by insulting the USA's soldiers and the people of the USA?

Who was that?

That was you.

"We successfully defended the Taliban 'home base' with 2500 troops for nearly 10 years, a feat that the US can only accomplish with 10X that number since it took over last year"

I made no inference to either the competency of Canadian or US troops. I made no insult, I stated only facts. I didn't even mention the citizens of the USA. If you choose to read into my statement and take insult with those assumptions, that is not my problem. I run into that occasionally in some forums; where politeness is taken as weakness, and rudeness is taken as strength. Ghandi showed us just the opposite is true.

And Ghandi is a man I regard very highly. He's also a man who would not use violent intent, such as insults, as a debating tactic. And not once in any forum have I had to result to insults when debating another. That includes the dirty form of the word 'liberal' as is bandied about in today's politics. He also didn't take bull--- from anyone, even if it were to cost him his life.

The only reason I chose to speak at all in this topic is because your posts started off as decidedly anti-Canadian, and you tried to bully my homie Kernie. That you'd imply I am anti-American is just your latest tactic in a flawed debating style. I notice too, no one even bothered to comment on the parts of my post actually on topic with this thread.

[de minimus]

Nova Scotia:canada:. The USS George Washington :flag:laid seige to the bars and tried to drink the town dry for a few days straight. We eventually withdrew, with our heads down. Not out of shame, but due to the hangovers. I think we came pretty damn close to doing it, tho! Great times!:beer:
Halifax is a nice little drinking town isn't it?

[Dr Caleb]

My inference was that Kenny's view was regarded as "the fox news of the north" therefore it offered no credence to kernie. Kenny shared his concerns (obviously as opinions), but as they weren't in sync with kernie's opinion, they were discounted by him.


As happens in debate. I don't take either party as wanting to engage in a heated debate as can happen sometimes, but I also don't discount anyone's opinion because they differ from mine. They were both more of a rant that a discussion, as I suggested, but comparing either of them to Fox 'News' does them both a disservice. ;) Kernie had a point, same as Kenny did.



Look, let's be honest here. Canada's a great country. My parents were Canadian born, 98% of my relatives live in Canada, I've been to Canada to visit as well as to work numerous times, and I like the country; but it's no Utopia. I've paid excessive prices for goods and services up there, in large part to the GST levied. You've got (and tout) universal healthcare, and the system obviously works, but I've also read articles in newspapers from Saskatchewan to New Brunswick, and have discussed concerns that my relatives and other have about Canadian health care issues (rationing, and the difficulty in obtaining timely services for some medical treatment) and the skyrocketing cost of providing health services, which indicate to me that the system is nowhere near perfect. Bottom line, you folks have your issues up there just like we have our issues down here. We're struggling to deal with them, and I believe we are facing a very painful period of reckoning. Facing that reckoning and struggling to deal with the implications is unsettling, and they aren't assuaged by repeated suggestions that life would be good if we (America) just became more like you guys (Canada); that just rankles most of the posters on this board (me, unapologetically, among them). First off, it ain't that simple, and secondly, it's just a little too socialistic an approach for many of us to feel comfortable with.

No one said we were perfect, least of all us, and every American I've met has been the best kind of person. But as I stated earlier, my province was heavily in debt and deficit and we overcame it. I know the cure is painful, and we don't mean to rankle anyone, but we only offer our own experience as a guide to help you guys out. That you guys automatically equate 'Canada' with 'Socialism' (and 'Socialism' with 'Communism' and 'Communism' with 'Evil') kind of rankles us too. Cutting spending and service to balance budgets is actually a conservative attribute. Raising taxes to do it is liberal. Socialism is a quite a broad range of philosophy to be boiled down to a single word. Our Socialism does not interact with our economic system, it's mainly a way for Government to operate. It defines the Government's duty in creating a society that is beneficial for citizens; which, if I am not mistaken, is also the intent of many Americans.

All we seek to do is offer advice that has helped us out in similar situations, to help you guys make informed decisions. Discount us if you must, but there is nothing but good intentions in anyone here.



That said, I agree completely on your perspective relating to Quebec's special treatment. It aligns closely with comments made by my Canadian cousins in the western provinces. Also, FWIW, the only province in which I've not felt welcome is Quebec (especially the Montreal airport).

I find that surprising, I've always felt at home in Montreal or Quebec City. But I'd really like the Quebec separatist party to run candidates outside of Quebec so I can vote for them. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it!

[duhtroll]

Just won't give up, will ya?

As has been proven, the Wisconsin argument has NOTHING to do with money.

The teachers' union has already agreed to every monetary concession the Governor wants. The issue is his wanting to eliminate collective bargaining.

Any bargaining for the following contract year could not possibly affect the state budget he is complaining about, as it wouldn't take effect until the next year.

This is a power grab by Republicans, and nothing more.

Every time you post this crap, I will refute it.

Unchecked entitlement, my rosy ass. I cannot believe that anyone here is going to use the argument that teachers, nationwide, are overpaid. Anyone who does is either using "my cousin Bubba" logic or has never taken into account what teachers actually do.


In Wisconsin, A Sense of Entitlement Imperils Nation

By Michael Goodwin
Published February 23, 2011
| New York Post


The Wisconsin showdown between a determined Republican governor and spoiled public unions is shaping up as a crucial test of state and municipal solvency. But the stakes represent only part of the much larger conflict engulfing America.
The real war is over the entitlement culture itself. And while government spending is the most visible part, the ultimate issues are the character and fate of our nation.
Any serious conversation about American decline must start with the fact that too many of our countrymen have lost the plot about how the United States became the beacon of the free world, the world's largest and the lone superpower.
For those who have no sense or interest in how we got here, it is easy to believe we are immune from the laws of history that inevitably reduce empires to dust.
From that willful ignorance, it's perfectly acceptable to demand pay without work, or, almost as insidious, pay and that dwarf those of your neighbors who foot the bill.

It is also perfectly acceptable to assume that, if you have a house you can't afford, the government -- again, your neighbors -- should be dunned to help you keep it. If your business is failing, the government's deep pockets are there to bail you out, no?
Or if your child can't read, it's not your fault. It's the teacher or the school or the mayor. Any scapegoat will do, as long as it's not you.
This is the noise of the entitlement culture as it plays out every day. It is contagious and so ingrained in how we live and think -- somebody else is to blame and must pay -- that we no longer think twice before demanding total satisfaction and expressing outrage when we don't get it.
We are entitled to it now because we want it, whatever it is. If somebody else has it first, then we have been cheated and are doubly furious.
As for giving it back, or taking less, what are you, a sucker? This is America, man, a free country.
Indeed it is, and that's the problem. We are free to be endlessly selfish, and nobody dares to tell us no.
Certainly, politicians won't do it. The entitlement scam has dominated public life for the better part of 50 years. John F. Kennedy's famous inaugural line of "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" turns out to have been the high-water mark of self-restraint.
Pretty much ever since, the "tax eaters" have been multiplying faster than the taxpayers. The balance has tilted so far that the great liberal lights of yesteryear, from FDR to JFK to LBJ, might well look at the Wisconsin unions and wonder what planet they're from. They certainly wouldn't recognize them as Democrats.
How dare the teachers skip school to protest? How dare they get fake doctor's notes to avoid consequences?
Easy -- they're entitled.
Soon, other states will be facing the same choice and, as voters made clear in last year's election, the war over Big Government will be settled in Washington.
It's not a comforting thought. The best politicians have been unable to stop the entitlement culture. Most are happy to stoke the demands for more, more, more as the easiest path to power.
We can't say we weren't warned. Thomas Jefferson (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/thomas-jefferson.htm#r_src=ramp), naturally, foresaw the consequences of unchecked entitlement. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

[CBT]

Halifax is a nice little drinking town isn't it?

It was a RIOT !! Great food, great hospitality, great drinking places, I miss it. Some of the best ports to hit are right here on our own North American eastern seaboard.

[SC Cheesehead]

As happens in debate. I don't take either party as wanting to engage in a heated debate as can happen sometimes, but I also don't discount anyone's opinion because they differ from mine. They were both more of a rant that a discussion, as I suggested, but comparing either of them to Fox 'News' does them both a disservice. ;) Kernie had a point, same as Kenny did.



No one said we were perfect, least of all us, and every American I've met has been the best kind of person. But as I stated earlier, my province was heavily in debt and deficit and we overcame it. I know the cure is painful, and we don't mean to rankle anyone, but we only offer our own experience as a guide to help you guys out. That you guys automatically equate 'Canada' with 'Socialism' (and 'Socialism' with 'Communism' and 'Communism' with 'Evil') kind of rankles us too. Cutting spending and service to balance budgets is actually a conservative attribute. Raising taxes to do it is liberal. Socialism is a quite a broad range of philosophy to be boiled down to a single word. Our Socialism does not interact with our economic system, it's mainly a way for Government to operate. It defines the Government's duty in creating a society that is beneficial for citizens; which, if I am not mistaken, is also the intent of many Americans.

All we seek to do is offer advice that has helped us out in similar situations, to help you guys make informed decisions. Discount us if you must, but there is nothing but good intentions in anyone here.



I find that surprising, I've always felt at home in Montreal or Quebec City. But I'd really like the Quebec separatist party to run candidates outside of Quebec so I can vote for them. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it!


Points well, taken, my friend!

[kernie]

The only reason I chose to speak at all in this topic is because your posts started off as decidedly anti-Canadian, and you tried to bully my homie Kernie. That you'd imply I am anti-American is just your latest tactic in a flawed debating style. I notice too, no one even bothered to comment on the parts of my post actually on topic with this thread.



Thank-you for that, different regions of Canada may bicker, but when the chips are down...


I went back and re-read the entire thread, i think the trouble started around post #45, last post on page 3, i meant it as a 'see what can be done' kinda thing {by the liberals! Ha!}but post #46 is an indicator of where the thread was headed, lol. BTW, to our American friends, wanna get a Canadian riled up real quick? repeat post #46!

Anyway, i will try to tone it down, peace all.

:beer:

[CBT]

Thank-you for that, different regions of Canada may bicker, but when the chips are down...


I went back and re-read the entire thread, i think the trouble started around post #45, last post on page 3, i meant it as a 'see what can be done' kinda thing {by the liberals! Ha!}but post #46 is an indicator of where the thread was headed, lol. BTW, to our American friends, wanna get a Canadian riled up real quick? repeat post #46!

Anyway, i will try to tone it down, peace all.

:beer:
Gaaaah! That's like 87 pages ago, too long to search, you should have cut/copied it for us, lol.

[SC Cheesehead]

Thank-you for that, different regions of Canada may bicker, but when the chips are down...


I went back and re-read the entire thread, i think the trouble started around post #45, last post on page 3, i meant it as a 'see what can be done' kinda thing {by the liberals! Ha!}but post #46 is an indicator of where the thread was headed, lol. BTW, to our American friends, wanna get a Canadian riled up real quick? repeat post #46!

Anyway, i will try to tone it down, peace all.

:beer:

Oh, that. I had to go re-read it myself, thought maybe it was a disparaging remark about Canadian beer or something...;)

Actually, that's an interesting concept, what with the western provinces sandwiched right between Alaska and the northern border of the US.

Tell you what, everything west of Manitoba gets to be the 51st state, everything East goes to Mouvement souverainiste du Québec, and we'll throw in upstate New York to sweeten the deal. Wisconsin gets the Upper Penninsula, and Ontario becomes the new Youp.

We got a deal?

;) -----> :D

[kernie]

Oh, that. I had to go re-read it myself, thought maybe it was a disparaging remark about Canadian beer or something...;)

Actually, that's an interesting concept, what with the western provinces sandwiched right between Alaska and the northern border of the US.

Tell you what, everything west of Manitoba gets to be the 51st state, everything East goes to Mouvement souverainiste du Québec, and we'll throw in upstate New York to sweeten the deal. Wisconsin gets the Upper Penninsula, and Ontario becomes the new Youp.

We got a deal?

;) -----> :D

Umm, let me think about it...no. But i will trade you Quebec for Wisconsin?

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

Umm, let me think about it...no. But i will trade you Quebec for Wisconsin?

:beer:

Tell you what, You can keep Quebec but I'll take southern BC plus a couple grand to boot... ;)

[kernie]

Tell you what, You can keep Quebec but I'll take southern BC plus a couple grand to boot... ;)

No way! Southern BC produces some of the finest crops known to man!:beatnik:

Of course you guys are at war with that too, so you lose!

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

No way! Southern BC produces some oh the finest crops known to man!:beatnik:

Of course you guys are at war with that too, so you lose!

:beer:

You drive a hard bargain.

I'll trade Saskatchewan (I'm a Rough Riders fan) for upstate Maine, I throw in $4,550 (CDN) plus you get Alex Trebek back, that's my final offer...

[tbone]

That was you.

"We successfully defended the Taliban 'home base' with 2500 troops for nearly 10 years, a feat that the US can only accomplish with 10X that number since it took over last year"

I made no inference to either the competency of Canadian or US troops. I made no insult, I stated only facts. I didn't even mention the citizens of the USA. If you choose to read into my statement and take insult with those assumptions, that is not my problem. I run into that occasionally in some forums; where politeness is taken as weakness, and rudeness is taken as strength. Ghandi showed us just the opposite is true.

And Ghandi is a man I regard very highly. He's also a man who would not use violent intent, such as insults, as a debating tactic. And not once in any forum have I had to result to insults when debating another. That includes the dirty form of the word 'liberal' as is bandied about in today's politics. He also didn't take bull--- from anyone, even if it were to cost him his life.

The only reason I chose to speak at all in this topic is because your posts started off as decidedly anti-Canadian, and you tried to bully my homie Kernie. That you'd imply I am anti-American is just your latest tactic in a flawed debating style. I notice too, no one even bothered to comment on the parts of my post actually on topic with this thread.

You spin everything to make the conversation diluted and unrecognizable from the observer's standpoint. I could take off my pants and then spend the next hour cutting and pasting your statements to once again prove my points and destroy yours. However, it is not necessary. People know that you are wrong.

Enjoy your socialism. You're in good company.:shake:

[kernie]

You drive a hard bargain.

I'll trade Saskatchewan (I'm a Rough Riders fan) for upstate Maine, I throw in $4,550 (CDN) plus you get Alex Trebek back, that's my final offer...

The Rough Riders are my team too! No finer football fans in Canada that's for sure! Upstate Maine is a jewel for sure {not kidding} and we really do want Alex back, even without the stash, the 4,550 {CDN, the expensive loonie} is a nice thought but you guys can't afford it.

Ahh, i'm not sure we can reach a deal, one more shot, Quebec for the Buffalo Bills, they will soon be in the skydome anyway...

:beer:

[tbone]

Just won't give up, will ya?

As has been proven, the Wisconsin argument has NOTHING to do with money.

The teachers' union has already agreed to every monetary concession the Governor wants. The issue is his wanting to eliminate collective bargaining.

Any bargaining for the following contract year could not possibly affect the state budget he is complaining about, as it wouldn't take effect until the next year.

This is a power grab by Republicans, and nothing more.

Every time you post this crap, I will refute it.

Unchecked entitlement, my rosy ass. I cannot believe that anyone here is going to use the argument that teachers, nationwide, are overpaid. Anyone who does is either using "my cousin Bubba" logic or has never taken into account what teachers actually do.


They will re-negotiate in 2 years and then we are all back to square one.
Ask FDR what he thought of collective bargaining for public employees.

My wife is a teacher. She recently had her pay frozen for 2 years. It will cost her 15k. We accept it. We don't complain and throw a tantrum. We are realists.

Don't tell me what I already know.

Do I need to explain to you who FDR is?

"Every time you post this crap, I will refute it."
DITTO

[69428SCJ]

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I for one am beside myself with all the Canadianism up in this MERICAN thread. I say we MERICANs take back our thread and repel the Canadian Imperialists back to the great white north. Whatch'y'all say, eh? :D

[duhtroll]

You have no idea what they will do in two years. :rolleyes: It is statements like this that make me wonder about you.

The protesting teachers are exercising a fundamental right that they have in this country. It is a right that no real American would ever dare criticize.

See how I turned that Hannity-ism back on ya'?

How old is your wife? I worked with teachers who were around before collective bargaining. It went something like this:

Each year, every teacher was called into the Superintendent's office, individually, to negotiate for their job. Not their pay, their job. Performance in the classroom had nothing whatsoever to do with the negotiations. If you were male and the admin. liked you, you got to keep your job. If you were buddies, you got a raise.

If they didn't like you or you were female, you got to keep your job but got little if any raise. If you spoke out in any way against any decision the admin. had made or suggested a better way of doing things, you got canned.

The reason collective bargaining exists is because no human being is qualified to evaluate every teacher in every subject area. There is just no one in existence smart enough to do it.

"Just use test scores." Yeah, except we get different kids every year. No teacher will raise test scores for all kids every year. It is simply not statistically possible, but that is what performance based pay is all about.

That, and basically every study out there on the subject shows that school performance is more about parents, income and home life than anything any teacher could do.

Collective bargaining and unions do not protect bad teachers any more than our court system protects criminals. Sure it has flaws, but it is better than letting some wingnut with anger management issues decide the fate of the staff members.

Last I checked, FDR has been dead for a while, and things have changed um, a little, since he was around.


They will re-negotiate in 2 years and then we are all back to square one.
Ask FDR what he thought of collective bargaining for public employees.

My wife is a teacher. She recently had her pay frozen for 2 years. It will cost her 15k. We accept it. We don't complain and throw a tantrum. We are realists.

Don't tell me what I already know.

Do I need to explain to you who FDR is?

"Every time you post this crap, I will refute it."
DITTO

[CBT]

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I for one am beside myself with all the Canadianism up in this MERICAN thread. I say we MERICANs take back our thread and repel the Canadian Imperialists back to the great white north. Whatch'y'all say, eh? :D

I'm with you!!! We need to do it soon, I'm too old to have to learn to speak Canadian!! :lol:

[SC Cheesehead]

The Rough Riders are my team too! No finer football fans in Canada that's for sure! Upstate Maine is a jewel for sure {not kidding} and we really do want Alex back, even without the stash, the 4,550 {CDN, the expensive loonie} is a nice thought but you guys can't afford it.

Ahh, i'm not sure we can reach a deal, one more shot, Quebec for the Buffalo Bills, they will soon be in the skydome anyway...

:beer:
:D
^^^^^^ True, that! ^^^^^

Hmmmm, really don't want Quebec, but not too keen on the Buffalo Bills, either. ;)

That said, rayjay may get all cranked up if I send his team up the river; better run the deal past him first...

[SC Cheesehead]

I'm with you!!! We need to do it soon, I'm too old to have to learn to speak Canadian!! :lol:

I've got an extra Rosetta Stone package if you'd like to borrow it, eh.

[CBT]

I've got an extra Rosetta Stone package if you'd like to borrow it, eh.
Hmmmm.......don't know if CBT wants a 'stone package' from the Rex.....

[SC Cheesehead]

Hmmmm.......don't know if CBT wants a 'stone package' from the Rex.....

Option #2:

http://northof45.livejournal.com/13709.html

[CBT]

Option #2:

http://northof45.livejournal.com/13709.html

Whatever this is caused a "Are you sure you want to go there" block by Northrup, lol.

[kernie]

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I for one am beside myself with all the Canadianism up in this MERICAN thread. I say we MERICANs take back our thread and repel the Canadian Imperialists back to the great white north. Whatch'y'all say, eh? :D


I'm with you!!! We need to do it soon, I'm too old to have to learn to speak Canadian!! :lol:

Ok, Ok, i'm in retreat!


:D
^^^^^^ True, that! ^^^^^

Hmmmm, really don't want Quebec, but not too keen on the Buffalo Bills, either. ;)

That said, rayjay may get all cranked up if I send his team up the river; better run the deal past him first...

I was wondering if any Bills fans would have something to say!, lol. Seriously though, if I were an upstate NY, bills fan i'd be some steamed at the powers who allowed some home games to be played in Toronto. That's unforgivable!

Peace, :beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

Ok, Ok, i'm in retreat!



I was wondering if any Bills fans would have something to say!, lol. Seriously though, if I were an upstate NY, bills fan i'd be some steamed at the powers who allowed some home games to be played in Toronto. That's unforgivable!

Peace, :beer:

I think there's only like three of 'em left, definitely a silent minority...

[CBT]

Ok, Ok, i'm in retreat!



I was wondering if any Bills fans would have something to say!, lol. Seriously though, if I were an upstate NY, bills fan i'd be some steamed at the powers who allowed some home games to be played in Toronto. That's unforgivable!

Peace, :beer:
When I think of Canada and sports, NFL football is not what I imagine. I think of sports like hocky. And drinking. And curling. Hey, I have an idea, allow fights in curling like they do in hockey! I would actually pay to watch that kind of action!

[Dr Caleb]

When I think of Canada and sports, NFL football is not what I imagine. I think of sports like hocky. And drinking. And curling. Hey, I have an idea, allow fights in curling like they do in hockey! I would actually pay to watch that kind of action!

ROFLMAO. At Legion curling tourneys, sometimes we do initiate the 'full contract' rule. But only if everyone is well lubricated with beer first.

High marking, there is something you have to try!