Jimbo 0
Recommended Posts
Ron 10
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free you seem to think I don't get your point...OK whatever, you seem to be missing mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you're getting it.
I understand your point...And for the LAST time (since it seems to be a waste of my time) I will say my opinion one more time to you about it.
You seem to think that a 5% budget cut will cause great damage...I don't.
You seem to think that ALL other programs should be cut before the EPA...I don't.
You seem to think the EPA is the bestest thing the whole darn world.....I don't.
You seem to think that we area ll gonna die if the EPA has to cut 5% of its budget...I don't and if you notice in 2000 the EPA's budget was the same as the this years budget...We made it to 2005 so I have some proof to back my claims that the world will not stop if the EPA has to cut 5%.
We will have to wait to see if the world stops to prove your point.
Again, one last time...you seem to think a 5% budget cut will doom all of humanity to death by noxious fumes.... I don't.
You are running around like Chicken little with no proof, no evidence, just an emotional argument...I have shown how Business have done the same thing time after time and they have not gone bankrupt.
QuoteAgain, I got my hammer and my nails here because I still don't think you getting the point.
No, I just don't agree that the world is gonna end if the EPA has to buy discount donuts.
You are free to continue to run around like chicken little crying about how the world is gonna end if you like.
I don't agree.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>This from a guy that drives a Honda, and bitches about the trade deficit.
Oh the irony! Next thing you know I will be against newbies jumping smaller canopies but jump a 1.9 to 1 loaded elliptical. Or worse yet - be against BASE jumping out of airplanes, but still be a BASE jumper! Heck, I could even be in favor of people buying solar power systems from professionals, but end up installing my own. My hypocrisy must know no bounds! Thank god honest people like you are here to point out my moral bankruptcy for all to see.
>Well you wish that WalMart would pay 100 an hour and go bankrupt.
Nope! An absurd suggestion. But a valiant try at hyperbole.
I can do that too - you want all american jobs to go to china so you can get your toys for 1% cheaper. See how easy that is?
>You'd rather they go bankrupt. And all the folks lose thier jobs and
>investors lose money.
I'd rather the slimy companies go bankrupt and the ethical ones prosper, yes. In terms you can understand - you'd be OK with the UN going bankrupt and dissolving even though it would cost tens of thousands of american jobs, because you think they're slimy and useless.
>OK, so cut the DoD's toilet budget some. See I am not screaming that
>all hell is gonna break lose over 5%...you are.
Oh, I doubt all hell is going to break loose. Indeed, if you could tell me "we don't need water quality enforcement because water quality is XXXX" then you might even have a point. But just to assume that you can cut 5% and cut the Krispy Kremes is absurd. By those standards, you could cut those Krispy Kremes year after year, and after 20 years you'd be spending $0 on the EPA and they'd do just as good a job for free - especially after you get rid of all the donuts.
In reality, cutting funding means cutting programs. What would you cut? Here's some of the things they do:
Enforcement of:
Clean air act
Clean water act
Endangered species act
Food quality protection act
OSHA
Safe drinking water act
Toxic substances control act
Administration of:
Brownfields program
Drinking water state revolving fund
Research oversight of:
National Exposure Research Labs (researches what, say, mercury in water does to people)
National Risk Management Research Labs (researches how to reduce emissions and their effects on people)
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Labs (determines what safe levels of vehicle emissions are and how to test them)
National Environmental Scientific Computing Center (provides computing resources to weathermen, climatologists, microbiologists etc)
Above I've listed 13 programs. Cutting the budget by 5% would mean eliminating one. Which one would you eliminate?
>I just find it funny you are willing to cut like hell one thing but cry about
>a small cut in something else.
I was suggesting a 5% cut in both, which by your own description is small. I know, any cut to your program is "cutting like hell" and any cut to any program your party dislikes is a small cut; that's the way of things here in black and white land. But it is just as hard to cut 5% out of the military as to cut 5% out of the EPA. In neither case is it "just donuts."
But that's neither here nor there. I don't think we should cut the EPA OR the military's funding by 5% - both serve critical functions to the US. Instead we should cut government funding to private businesses and let capitalism work. Let's use our taxes to support programs like the EPA and the US military, rather than Wal-Mart employees or Exxon executives.
Oh the irony! Next thing you know I will be against newbies jumping smaller canopies but jump a 1.9 to 1 loaded elliptical. Or worse yet - be against BASE jumping out of airplanes, but still be a BASE jumper! Heck, I could even be in favor of people buying solar power systems from professionals, but end up installing my own. My hypocrisy must know no bounds! Thank god honest people like you are here to point out my moral bankruptcy for all to see.
>Well you wish that WalMart would pay 100 an hour and go bankrupt.
Nope! An absurd suggestion. But a valiant try at hyperbole.
I can do that too - you want all american jobs to go to china so you can get your toys for 1% cheaper. See how easy that is?
>You'd rather they go bankrupt. And all the folks lose thier jobs and
>investors lose money.
I'd rather the slimy companies go bankrupt and the ethical ones prosper, yes. In terms you can understand - you'd be OK with the UN going bankrupt and dissolving even though it would cost tens of thousands of american jobs, because you think they're slimy and useless.
>OK, so cut the DoD's toilet budget some. See I am not screaming that
>all hell is gonna break lose over 5%...you are.
Oh, I doubt all hell is going to break loose. Indeed, if you could tell me "we don't need water quality enforcement because water quality is XXXX" then you might even have a point. But just to assume that you can cut 5% and cut the Krispy Kremes is absurd. By those standards, you could cut those Krispy Kremes year after year, and after 20 years you'd be spending $0 on the EPA and they'd do just as good a job for free - especially after you get rid of all the donuts.
In reality, cutting funding means cutting programs. What would you cut? Here's some of the things they do:
Enforcement of:
Clean air act
Clean water act
Endangered species act
Food quality protection act
OSHA
Safe drinking water act
Toxic substances control act
Administration of:
Brownfields program
Drinking water state revolving fund
Research oversight of:
National Exposure Research Labs (researches what, say, mercury in water does to people)
National Risk Management Research Labs (researches how to reduce emissions and their effects on people)
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Labs (determines what safe levels of vehicle emissions are and how to test them)
National Environmental Scientific Computing Center (provides computing resources to weathermen, climatologists, microbiologists etc)
Above I've listed 13 programs. Cutting the budget by 5% would mean eliminating one. Which one would you eliminate?
>I just find it funny you are willing to cut like hell one thing but cry about
>a small cut in something else.
I was suggesting a 5% cut in both, which by your own description is small. I know, any cut to your program is "cutting like hell" and any cut to any program your party dislikes is a small cut; that's the way of things here in black and white land. But it is just as hard to cut 5% out of the military as to cut 5% out of the EPA. In neither case is it "just donuts."
But that's neither here nor there. I don't think we should cut the EPA OR the military's funding by 5% - both serve critical functions to the US. Instead we should cut government funding to private businesses and let capitalism work. Let's use our taxes to support programs like the EPA and the US military, rather than Wal-Mart employees or Exxon executives.
jumper03 0
QuoteYou seem to think that a 5% budget cut will cause great damage...I don't.
I don't think that. I've said the opposite twice now.
QuoteYou seem to think that ALL other programs should be cut before the EPA...I don't.
YES! because we all need what they protect. Not sometimes, not some people - everyone all the time.
QuoteYou seem to think the EPA is the bestest thing the whole darn world.....I don't.
Nope. It's a federal govt bureau so by definition its bad. However, it's purpose is to keep the things we need to live safe.
QuoteYou seem to think that we area ll gonna die if the EPA has to cut 5% of its budget...I don't and if you notice in 2000 the EPA's budget was the same as the this years budget...We made it to 2005 so I have some proof to back my claims that the world will not stop if the EPA has to cut 5%.
Nope, but I'd rather not play craps with it and take the gamble with the necessities of life. As I've stated several times - a 5% cut could mean no difference in the environment what so ever. I could also mean drastic changes - we don't know. Therefore, lets cut 5% from something we don't depend on for life - like flying.
So you saying we could keep DoD's budget at 2003 level?
QuoteAgain, one last time...you seem to think a 5% budget cut will doom all of humanity to death by noxious fumes.... I don't.
I've never said that but are you willing to take the chance? I like breathing.
Quotejust an emotional argument...
and until we get past this conceptual roadblock it does no good to get down to specifics.
QuoteNo, I just don't agree that the world is gonna end if the EPA has to buy discount donuts.
somehow I don't think donuts are the root of the problem here...
Scars remind us that the past is real
Ron 10
QuoteI can do that too - you want all american jobs to go to china so you can get your toys for 1% cheaper. See how easy that is?
No if you read my posts...you will see I am for free market. Which means if I would rather pay more for an American product just since it was made in America then its my right to do that. However, if I think that the American product is worth less, but costs more than say a German product, then it is my right to also buy the German product. Then American Companies can see that they are losing business due to the lower quality of the product. So they can shape up, or go bankrupt.
QuoteI'd rather the slimy companies go bankrupt and the ethical ones prosper, yes.
And of course what companies are "Billvon approved" would be based on your almighty knowledge and personal opinion. Since we know you could not be wrong.
QuoteOh, I doubt all hell is going to break loose. Indeed, if you could tell me "we don't need water quality enforcement because water quality is XXXX" then you might even have a point. But just to assume that you can cut 5% and cut the Krispy Kremes is absurd
The Krispy Kremes is an example. You also failed to read my posts were I talked about how my company saved 7 million dollars by using one supplier of office products for all of our locations. You have to look at the programs and see which ones have the fat that can be cut. You assume that programs have to go, and refuse to look at HOW the programs are run and if that could be the problem.
Case in point. My Father used to be an Analyst for a company. I called him a "Manager for hire". He would go into a company and see how the company ran, and went to see if there were ways to better do the job. He and I have talked about this kind of work, and I have done this kind of work at my current job, so I know something about it....But the story I use to explain waste is this one my dad told me.
A company had a warehouse full of widgets. They just KNEW that the widget demand was gonnna be huge. So they had a warehouse full of these widgets waiting on the boom. They kept the warehouse and paid for the warehouse so long that they were never gonna make a profit on the product. The cost of keeping the product was greater than any possible profit.
There are ways to cut your expenses....day old donuts is just one example. I used it to inject humor...I guess I should know better than using humor with you. Cutting the cost of building overhead is another. Reducing the energy consumption at each location is still another. Seeing if your head count is to much is a third (One often times used to much before the others are looked into). So your claims that any one program will be lost is BS at best.
QuoteI was suggesting a 5% cut in both, which by your own description is small. I know, any cut to your program is "cutting like hell" and any cut to any program your party dislikes is a small cut; that's the way of things here in black and white land. But it is just as hard to cut 5% out of the military as to cut 5% out of the EPA. In neither case is it "just donuts."
In fact I think I was the first to say cut both...but I don't expect you to admit that.
QuoteBut that's neither here nor there. I don't think we should cut the EPA OR the military's funding by 5% - both serve critical functions to the US. Instead we should cut government funding to private businesses and let capitalism work. Let's use our taxes to support programs like the EPA and the US military, rather than Wal-Mart employees or Exxon executives.
I have no problem cutting Exxon, or Walmart from the Government tit. I also think we should cut Welfare to just those that really need it, not just hand it out. I further think that we should cut the DoD and EPA budgets so they can trim the fat.
See I don't have a sacred cow. I killed it, it tasted good. <----That is a joke, an attempt at humor, I would hate for you to think I killed my cow.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
Whatever
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 3,118
>you will see I am for free market.
I was kidding! I don't think you really want all US jobs to go to China, and I'm sure if you think about it, you'll realize that I don't want Wal-Mart employees to make $100 an hour. Both are silly suggestions.
>And of course what companies are "Billvon approved" would be based on
> your almighty knowledge and personal opinion.
Exactly! Just like the ones you support are Ron Approved(TM.) A free market and all that. If you think Wal-Mart is the best thing since sliced bread, then by all means, support them. I think they suck, and I think they hurt US workers.
>You also failed to read my posts were I talked about how my company
>saved 7 million dollars by using one supplier of office products for all of
> our locations.
That's great! Now imagine that your CEO said "you cut 7 million worth of the worst bloat! Now cut 7 million worth of fat somewhere else." How many times could you do that? Ten? Twenty? Probably not too many before you had to start cutting things like customer services, and going out of business would not be far behind.
In private industry, the nutso cut-everything types are weeded out by the system - their company fails when they cut essential services. That's not true in government - you can cut and cut until the agency/service is useless, but it will still hang around forever being useless since it can't go out of business. Thus saying things like "you can always cut 5%" make zero sense. You have to be smarter than that, and say things like "we can cut $20 million out of budget X by firing people and using temps" or whatever. Because if you don't do that, you might just end up cutting water-quality testing, and that could lead to public health problems.
>I have no problem cutting Exxon, or Walmart from the Government tit.
Then we agree on that! Do that first then look at the EPA/military.
I was kidding! I don't think you really want all US jobs to go to China, and I'm sure if you think about it, you'll realize that I don't want Wal-Mart employees to make $100 an hour. Both are silly suggestions.
>And of course what companies are "Billvon approved" would be based on
> your almighty knowledge and personal opinion.
Exactly! Just like the ones you support are Ron Approved(TM.) A free market and all that. If you think Wal-Mart is the best thing since sliced bread, then by all means, support them. I think they suck, and I think they hurt US workers.
>You also failed to read my posts were I talked about how my company
>saved 7 million dollars by using one supplier of office products for all of
> our locations.
That's great! Now imagine that your CEO said "you cut 7 million worth of the worst bloat! Now cut 7 million worth of fat somewhere else." How many times could you do that? Ten? Twenty? Probably not too many before you had to start cutting things like customer services, and going out of business would not be far behind.
In private industry, the nutso cut-everything types are weeded out by the system - their company fails when they cut essential services. That's not true in government - you can cut and cut until the agency/service is useless, but it will still hang around forever being useless since it can't go out of business. Thus saying things like "you can always cut 5%" make zero sense. You have to be smarter than that, and say things like "we can cut $20 million out of budget X by firing people and using temps" or whatever. Because if you don't do that, you might just end up cutting water-quality testing, and that could lead to public health problems.
>I have no problem cutting Exxon, or Walmart from the Government tit.
Then we agree on that! Do that first then look at the EPA/military.
Ron 10
QuoteI was kidding! I don't think you really want all US jobs to go to China, and I'm sure if you think about it, you'll realize that I don't want Wal-Mart employees to make $100 an hour. Both are silly suggestions.
Yes but there has to be a blance somewhere. Many folks seem to forget that companies are there to make a profit. They seem to think that companies should be there to support the EE's...And a good company that is making a profit WILL take care of the EE's. But no company can afford to pay so much that they go bankrupt....Problem is people still don't get that, they think that the busineses should always give more...Just like people think the Government should always give more.
Thats a bad way of thinking.
Companies are there to make money. Good companies will take care of the EE's. The EE's will provide good service. The service will bring more customers and money to the company...Then it starts over. There is a start to this cycle...Its service. Money alone does not make good service. So increasing a companies operating revenue will not always create an increase in serrvice. Many times with added income only the fat grows. So the first thing to do is make sure that the companies are running efficently before you add money.
You can cut small things and not effect much.
American Airlines today stoped having pillows on flights. This will save AA over half a million dollars this year. I bet most companies could do something along those lines.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteYes but there has to be a blance somewhere. Many folks seem to forget that companies are there to make a profit. They seem to think that companies should be there to support the EE's...And a good company that is making a profit WILL take care of the EE's. But no company can afford to pay so much that they go bankrupt....Problem is people still don't get that, they think that the busineses should always give more...Just like people think the Government should always give more.
Funny, Wal Mart Canada isn't subsidized, Canada's corporate tax structure on top of that is not as advantageous as the US', yet they still make money.
Ron 10
QuoteFunny, Wal Mart Canada isn't subsidized, Canada's corporate tax structure on top of that is not as advantageous as the US', yet they still make money.
Did you bother to read the posts?
I said cut the funding to WalMart.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
How's that going to work? You present your "I'm poor" card at the cashier? Specifically which foods and which clothing products will be exempt?
-
Jim
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites