I didn't realize the Bush years were now being called "the largesse of our parents." Were your folks running the government or something? Mine sure as shit weren't.
Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts
- Thread starter Rationalist
- Start date
I didn't realize the Bush years were now being called "the largesse of our parents." Were your folks running the government or something? Mine sure as shit weren't.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If you have more than an ounce of brain matter, you can clearly see where this will go. Damo's idea is foolish, the Democrats can "cut" 10% of NEA funding, and we have to cut 10% of the military budget? Dems can "cut" 10% of the Food Stamp program, we have to cut another 10% of the military budget? So, by the time we work our way through the thousands of liberal social programs out there, they have an average of 10% cuts, and the military budget is cut 80%...90%? That makes sense to you, Damo? And what happens when the social program in question is currently getting a 12% annual increase in funding due to cost of living? A 10% cut means they only get a 2% increase instead of 12%... but that's a 10% cut! This is the kind of thing you'll run into. The social spending will not get cut, it will remain sacred, but the military will be decimated! Why? Because you are a fuckwit who doesn't understand you can't compromise or negotiate with Liberals! How about this idea... for the next 10 years, EVERY program funded by tax dollars, doesn't receive any increase for cost of living, and instead, has to cut their budget from the previous year by 2%, including military programs. This gives us a real 20% reduction in the budget over the next 10 years, actually more, because it's not adjusted for inflation. Something like that might be acceptable, but what Damo suggested is crazy, and would result in a gutted military budget, and not much else.
The Bush years are not even the largest portion of the debt. Since 1960 we've never once paid down ANY of our debt.
Do you ever get tired of sipping that bathwater?
So far all you've contributed is partisan nonsense.
More Motts Syndrome where you ignore what people say to attempt to "attack" what you wanted them to say.
I now expect Mott to come back here and start talking about how nobody on the right ever mentions any specifics on what could be cut again.
Either you believe government has gotten too large and needs to be cut or you don't Dix. Participate or not, I don't give a rat's butt, but if you're ever going to be successful making any cuts compromise will have to be reached.
The above may have been lost in the shuffle. What'd you say, Damo?
The time for half-measures & this petty bickering is over. We've seen the history - the Soviet Union, Greece et al.
We have also looked into the abyss, in the fall of 2008. That should have been a huge wake-up call.
What I hear from both sides is the equivalent of a family that owns 4 cars, takes extravagant vacations & goes out to dinner 3x a week facing foreclosure, and saying they can avoid it by turning off the lights when they leave the room.
It's time to get serious, and change the way we live - and that includes the way gov't works, from the NEA all the way up to the defense budget, and everything in between.
We have also looked into the abyss, in the fall of 2008. That should have been a huge wake-up call.
What I hear from both sides is the equivalent of a family that owns 4 cars, takes extravagant vacations & goes out to dinner 3x a week facing foreclosure, and saying they can avoid it by turning off the lights when they leave the room.
It's time to get serious, and change the way we live - and that includes the way gov't works, from the NEA all the way up to the defense budget, and everything in between.
Exactly. I fully agree, and if we can that means some people in Congress can as well.
I'm not going to participate in feeding the Mott Syndrome any longer. You can sit in the corner and keep repeating "NEA" all you want and talk all about how other people are dumb while the adults talk about the cuts that will be necessary to get our budget in line. When we're done we can let you come into the conversation and start talking about the NEA seriously. You've spent too much of my valuable time continuing this drive into stupid.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Indeed, government HAS gotten too large, but it's like I said, Liberals have NO intention of cutting ANY social entitlement! NONE! Try and get that through your thick head! They will play fast and loose with the terminology, and the numbers... they will lie and mislead... they will call things "cuts" that really are not cuts at all, and they will more than gladly accept your generous offer to gut the military budget in the process! That's how it is going to work with Liberals, because that is how it always does work with Liberals!
Because of the nature of the sausage-making, most liberal social entitlement programs have a built-in annual increase in funding, due to population growth and inflation. Military defense spending, is mostly appropriated on a 'review' basis, where X number of dollars are appropriated this year, and we'll review the program next year and determine whether to increase or decrease the funding. So, you have two entirely different means of funding going on here, they are not the same. To say you're going to cut 10% of the "Shoes for Paraplegics" program, is not the same as cutting 10% of the entire military budget!
I don't care about their intention, Dix. I realize that if we're going to cut such entitlements we'll also need to cut portions of our sacred cow. They can enter the discussion with the intention of saving as much of their "important" bits of the budget, just like we can. So long as they come to the table knowing all of them will be cut and the only question is to "how much" it will be cut, as do we.
You used the NEA as an example of a worthless program you want to cut and have suggested that there are many more that collectively will that something more than a marginal impact on the budget. Well, what are they?
I understand that you additionally want to make cuts to everything, I'm just trying to get a sense of what you want to eliminate completely. No need to be so damned defensive.
The real bitch of all this is that if you listened to me ten years ago we wouldn't be in this position, but the so-called deficit hawks decided that cutting taxes was more important than cutting spending and here we are.
I mentioned something another poster mentioned and said that it can be talked about AFTER we all come to the table recognizing that everything will be cut. I used it to show a position different from what you are saying. Now, go and talk to the other kiddies, the adults are having a conversation.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is total insanity.
Actually, you said the following:
I'm just looking to gain an understanding of what you meant by "all the worthless programs" and, frankly, I don't think it's too much to ask. In fact, it should be quite an easy exercise.
That was when I let you draw me into the conversation at the child's table. As I've stated I no longer will feed the Mott Syndrome. We already know where you are at, according to you we can't possibly stop borrowing money on the backs of future generations and spending it foolishly, you say we must spend still more of it. We're good with where you stand.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Damo, you and I are both conservatives who understand we have to cut government spending and waste. We just disagree on how to do that. You seem to think these people can be negotiated with and they will make compromises in good faith, as if they agree with our philosophy. That shows a clear lack of understanding of what Liberals believe. Aren't you reading what Nigel is saying? He thinks the government needs to be spending MORE money, not LESS! Most liberal socialists don't agree with our idea to cut ANYTHING! Now, if they see an opportunity to cut military spending, so they can have more money to delve out in social entitlements, they'll gladly accept it! And that's what you're going to get, because you foolishly thought they would accept your generous offer in good faith and work with us to curb spending! That's never going to happen with the liberal social entitlements, and it not be used as a hammer to pound you over the head with. Just try to accept that fact of life!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
please, for all of us undereducated economists, explain in detail how the government spending MORE money helps us.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Keynesian economics.... haven't you heard? It's all the latest rage in pinhead land! It's the policy that failed in the 1930s, failed again in the 1970s, is currently failing in Japan, and will ultimately fail again here as well. But don't let that stop you from believing it can work! Yes... you see, the government borrows a trillion dollars and spends a trillion dollars, and this will boost the economy more than actually encouraging productivity and real economic growth!