Showdown in Oregon

I don't think it's equal in culpability, Seattle.

When those you mention who goto DailyKOS are voting for a guy who literally wants to make America a socialist country ... there's no equivalent on the conservative side.
Even those who are separatists tapping Breitbart, are not as far away from the founding of this nation than those who'd let/beg the Fed to attend to most everything ... as opposed to just those Constitutionally few.
 
OK guys, when Bernie Sanders says "Socialist" think FDR, not Stalin. So far as I know, no socialist groups are gathering armaments or talking armed occupation or concentration camps. Nobody on the left is after your freedom of speech, assembly, peaceful worship or ability to vote. A fair deal for workers, a living wage and health care access outside a hospital emergency room would not be the end of capitalism, though Papa John and the Walton heirs, lamentably, may not be so fast as they like in their acceleration to mind-boggling wealth.
 
whatever you want to call it ... it's NOT Constitutional and that there's more than fringe support speaks poorly of our culture and it's members' failure to appreciate what was sacrificed to produce "the great experiment."
Clearly, we are marching closer to detonating the experiment as we are already far away from the founding ... not just because we can defy gravity or communicate on this internets (sic) ...or, for our aggy cousins, put liquid in containers which will maintain temperature magically (how does the thermos know, hot or cold) but because we are expecting someone else to support us. We don't call it that, but when something comes from the government, someone ELSE provided for it.
 
ShAArk92 said:
whatever you want to call it ... it's NOT Constitutional and that there's more than fringe support speaks poorly of our culture and it's members' failure to appreciate what was sacrificed to produce "the great experiment."
Clearly, we are marching closer to detonating the experiment as we are already far away from the founding ... not just because we can defy gravity or communicate on this internets (sic) ...or, for our aggy cousins, put liquid in containers which will maintain temperature magically (how does the thermos know, hot or cold) but because we are expecting someone else to support us. We don't call it that, but when something comes from the government, someone ELSE provided for it.
Click to expand...

I found out how to pay for it:
Including non-DOD expenditures, military spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, that's a sacred cow though right? In fact, we need to invest MORE to rebuild our navy, air force and other military industrial complex sponsored initiatives. That is the conservative counter to the "socialist". Both are extremely bloated and need a true fiscal conservative to attack them.
 
It doesn't need to be "paid for" because it's not a proper exercise of government authority ... regardless of how many "pet" conservative expenditures you find (there'll only be 4 or 5 of 'em).

why do you feel the need to guess? Why not ASK?

Are you asking if I think we need to spend more on our DOD branches? If so ...

I don't know. I think we've seen, as a result of this sequestration buffoonery, that what was supposed to be ... wasn't ... and that even the Pentagon sounds more like a political house than the bed of our Defense Strategy and Tactics. (Ref A-10 retirement drama)

I used to advocate doing what the Joint Chiefs said we needed ... not what Congressman Dilbert with a particular manufacturing plant/military base had in his district.

Defense costs what it costs ... as a market item, there's only one show in town ... that, by definition, increases the cost. Nevermind what the expense is actually supposed to provide in that Defense.
 
There are too many people that call themselves fiscal conservatives yet advocate for increased military spending and more military activity abroad.

I also think we need to trim entitlement programs also. Social Security needs to be revised. I'm pro raising the retirement age or limiting benefits to those under the age of 50 right now.

Ultimately, people too often have "pet programs" that they want to trim the others programs but leave theirs alone yet they don't recognize that fact.
 
I also think we need to trim entitlement programs also. Social Security needs to be revised. I'm pro raising the retirement age or limiting benefits to those under the age of 50 right now.
Click to expand...

Well that's a liberal flag right there. You talk about trimming entitlements, and, well, what do you know, the only one that comes to mind is SS. Uh, hello, a program that takes money that I *payed in* and then promises to pay it back to me later (regardless of the horrible ROI%) is not an entitlement. It's an obligation.

Ever notice how every few years there is this big hue and cry about SS is gonna run out of money? I don't recall them ever saying welfare or food stamp programs were going to run out.
 
Phil Elliott said:
Well that's a liberal flag right there. You talk about trimming entitlements, and, well, what do you know, the only one that comes to mind is SS. Uh, hello, a program that takes money that I *payed in* and then promises to pay it back to me later (regardless of the horrible ROI%) is not an entitlement. It's an obligation.

Ever notice how every few years there is this big hue and cry about SS is gonna run out of money? I don't recall them ever saying welfare or food stamp programs were going to run out.
Click to expand...

SS would be just one example, I'd make cuts across the board. Nearly every program is paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes. For example, the average person pays in ~$165k lifetime in Medicare/Medicaid and takes out ~$450k. You should always be skeptical of anyone that says "I paid in so I deserve..." because in most cases they are taking much more than they ever gave.

I'll reiterate. If you have sacred cows then you're not really serious about fiscal restraint.
 
The difference is the Constitutionality.

Defense is.

Welfare programs (even SS) ain't.

So WRT defense, the only discussion is amount spent.
 
I'm not certain about constitutional law, but if Congress passes a bill that requires money for something, and the president signs it into law, and the federal courts don't use judicial review to alter/abolish the law, then why is welfare unconstitutional? That sounds like a losing argument right out of a 200-year-old Supreme Court case.
 
SH no one ever remembers that what I pay into SS my employer matches. When you take that together with my contribution the amount withdrawn would NOT be excessive with only a very small interest accrual over a life time of work.
 
Hang yer hat on court decisions ... but the Constitution says what it says. The PreAmble ... "... provide for the common defence (sic) ... PROMOTE the general welfare"

Nash ... great point ... if we'd simply take that 15% of salary/paycheck and put it in a savings account ... that would almost triple the value of a monthly allotment at 65 (assuming contribution began at 20 earning $40k/year for 45 years) ... We need to expand the IRA ... remove the 6K/year cap and mandate at least 15% of the salary/check is invested in an IRA. YOUR money. Not the Govt's to hold, manage, or spend ... only to mandate that the transaction happens. THAT would be a fair compromise to personal liberty IMHO.

We've been sold a bill of goods on the SS deal, folks. I recognize this is a bit specific to the thread's general topic about the role of the Fed/land/etc ... but it's the HONEST truth. When FDR signed SS ... the life expectancy was only 62 ... so ... you can surmise, SS was NEVER intended to pay, only to receive.

Stop looking to the government for your provision. Nothing good for YOU will come of that ... only the Big Govt/Lobby ... even Big Biz/Labor elites only. NOT YOU.
 
If you have sacred cows then you're not really serious about fiscal restraint.
Click to expand...

I don't have any sacred cows, even tho I am nearing retirement age. I just found it telling that the 1 and only "example" of what you call an "entitlement" happened to be SS.

If I was running the show, I would start with a 10% cut in every department's budget, no exceptions. I keep doing that every year until the budget is balanced. Along the way, I make a balanced-budget amendment with no borrowing allowed my #1 priority to get ratified.
 
Agree with Phil's every department cut but would go further - some departments need elimination, pure fiscal necessity. Spend any time in DC or do business with any Gov't agency and, provided you have any observation skills, I defy you to not see waste - in personnel AND hardware. It is shameful. Granted my personal experience is military and medical but listening and looking shows it to be everywhere, I mean look at the legislative and executive staffing and physical structures. Ridiculous!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top