rhaig 0 #26 August 1, 2012 Quote If you don't understand why and how there is a problem, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a suitable solution. different schools of problem solving. One (yours) focuses on understanding the initial cause, and knowing how the problem came about in hopes to come up with a long term solution. The other (mine) focuses first on solving the immediate problem and then on prevention and a long term solution. Your school of problem solving usually comes up with a very nice long term solution and when implemented properly usually takes less time to implement. Though almost always takes more time to find the solution, and in doing so takes more time from initial problem solving onset to final solution implementation (as the initial problem is now harder to solve). My school of problem solving usually comes up with an immediate solution that may not be a long term solution, solves the immediate problem, and then can take the time to go back and work on a longer term solution. My school of problem solving suffers from people who half-ass the long term solution because there is no more immediate pain being felt. I understand why you think what you think, I just disagree. solving real-money problems for large companies is what I do every day. I see both types of problem solving in my work. Mine is more effective when there is high immediate pain such as great loss of assets or potential profit. (such as overspending a budget putting a country in to huge debt) Yours is more effective when the problem is pervasive but isn't causing the client as much immediate pain.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #27 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteUntil we can acknowledge how the problem came about, there is little hope in solving it. That depends on how you quantify the problem. If your boat is sinking and you find large leak, you plug the leak and bail the water out. You don't first start worrying about why there is a leak there in the first place, that comes after you have kept yourself floating. You have now solved the problem of sinking, you have not solved the problem of how the leak got there. The US is in the same boat. While many are pointing fingers on who is responsible for the leak, the boat is sinking. Fair enough. My thinking is that any viable solution helps prevent the problem from reoccurring. For that, it must be understood why the problem occurred in the first place. If an experienced skydiver averages one main malfunction per twenty jumps, is the solution to cutaway and pull the reserve or to identify the cause of the frequent malfunctions in order to prevent them in the future?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteWell, he bears equal blame … According to some of the uninformed, anyway. QuoteIMO we stop the spending first, get that under control, then short term tax bumps if needed. That won't work. No one can agree on which programs should be cut and which programs should be funded. While they bicker about it, the debt continues to grow. Much better is to raise taxes first, so that we can pay as we go while debating spending cuts. Do you understand the impact of the taxation levels to do what you propose?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #29 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Country has a Spending Issue, lets get that under control then we can debate taxes. The nation has a cashflow problem. Cash flows both ways, in and out. Let's try to fix the cashflow problem. Sure, it flows out more than it takes in. We should only spend what we have come in. But as the Gov has never had to be accountable, that won't happen. Matt Well, IMO Keynes had it right - (A) run a deficit when times are bad, and (B) repay with a surplus when times are good. Trouble, is the government regularly does part (A) but rarely follows up with part (B). Only during Clinton's term can I recall any attempt at (B).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #30 August 1, 2012 QuoteA few simple rules: Congress, the Senate and the POTUS will receive no pay in any year in which they do not deliver a budget before 1 Oct or any year in which said budget is not balanced. Congress, the Senate and the POTUS shall receive no pay increases of any sort in any year in which there is a national debt. Every member of Congress and the Senate shall send their first born child or closest next-of-kin who is fit for military duty to serve in any military expedition authorized or funded by said bodies. The POTUS shall personally lead such military expeditions directed by him. In his absence, the Vice President shall assume duties as the POTUS. You get the idea. The people who create the problems should feel the pain. Passing laws that don't effect you just leads to all kinds of hooliganism. Nice idea. However, the congressional and presidential salaries are small potatoes in relation to the net wealth of almost all of them. I doubt they'd notice if they were zeroed out,... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #31 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteWell, he bears equal blame … According to some of the uninformed, anyway. Quote He bears responsibility, just like the Presidents before him. To think other wise is naive. The President has the Veto, he should play hard ball with it. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #32 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe Country has a Spending Issue, lets get that under control then we can debate taxes. The nation has a cashflow problem. Cash flows both ways, in and out. Let's try to fix the cashflow problem. Sure, it flows out more than it takes in. We should only spend what we have come in. But as the Gov has never had to be accountable, that won't happen. Matt Well, IMO Keynes had it right - (A) run a deficit when times are bad, and (B) repay with a surplus when times are good. Trouble, is the government regularly does part (A) but rarely follows up with part (B). Only during Clinton's term can I recall any attempt at (B). Have we actually had a true surplus since '41? I agree with your points. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 906 #33 August 1, 2012 How many presidential and congressional salaries are we currently covering? Not to mention when you look at some of those payouts...it's just unreal to give over a million dollars to a member of our government. I can't ever understand that. Corrine Brown for one.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #34 August 1, 2012 QuoteHow many presidential and congressional salaries are we currently covering? Not to mention when you look at some of those payouts...it's just unreal to give over a million dollars to a member of our government. I can't ever understand that. Corrine Brown for one.... I think you are confusing the congressperson's salary with the cost of running the office. The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #35 August 1, 2012 http://www.legistorm.com/member/148/Rep_Corrine_Brown/146.html I think this is just one quarter's salaries for the Staff. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 906 #36 August 1, 2012 You're correct, I misunderstood the numbers. I still say we need serious cuts in the administrative costs...like everywhere else. This will require cuts to everything and tax increases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #37 August 1, 2012 QuoteYou're correct, I misunderstood the numbers. I still say we need serious cuts in the administrative costs...like everywhere else. This will require cuts to everything and tax increases. OK, but still the BIG SPENDING is overwhelmingly in just 3 areas, each of which has a strong constituency: defense, SocSec and Medicare. All the rest combined is still far less than these three. If it weren't so sad it would be funny to see Republican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. Read the thread title.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #38 August 1, 2012 QuoteRepublican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. I don't see how this is partisan - it's pretty much everyone ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #39 August 1, 2012 Want to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #40 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteRepublican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. I don't see how this is partisan - it's pretty much everyone There are a lot of non Republicans who support significant cuts to the defense budget, which is, as you well know, roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. We could cut it 50% and still far outspend any likely (or even unlikely) foe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #41 August 1, 2012 QuoteWant to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #42 August 1, 2012 Quote I'd like to see Congress (all of them) penalized for failing to do their job. If they can't get a budget in on time, no pay. For them or their staff. One possible result of this is similar to how the health care bill was passed. 900 pages, no time to read it, passed on partisan voting lines. California has the no budget, no pay law. So they tried to pull a fast one. Got real interesting when the Secretary with authority refused to accept it, saying it was not a legitimate budget and therefore he would withhold the checks. The most effective tool for (err, against) Congress are automatic cuts that are across the board. It's a very crude hammer as a fix, but it's about the only thing that will force them to talk...unless they talk and simply agree to halt the cuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #43 August 1, 2012 Quote...unless they talk and simply agree to halt the cuts. Which is exactly what I predicted would happen. And here we are. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #44 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteWant to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class? Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #45 August 1, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Want to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class? Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? No, I'm suggesting that you can't make cuts of any significance without cutting SS, Medicare and/or defense. All the rest is peanuts by comparison. It's not like it hasn't been spelled out to you previouslywww.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4204028;search_string=social%20security%20medicare;#4204028... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #46 August 1, 2012 Quote Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? We're very close to the day where people will be asked to make a very simple choice: 1) pay more taxes 2) or dramatically cut the size of the military. And the longer we put off that decision, the harder option #2 gets to be because we can't lay off millions in the military and the subcontractors all at once, so really it will become a mandatory tax hike. People want to live in the 80s, but we can no longer afford or justify a super power defense budget. It is actually making us weaker due to the deficit it causes. We'd be better off shifting to a defense sized for our defensive needs, not our long standing Cold War need/wish to be able to project power across the globe. Other countries may realize they liked freeloading off of us...they can build their own abilities then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #47 August 1, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Want to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class? Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? No, I'm suggesting that you can't make cuts of any significance without cutting SS, Medicare and/or defense. All the rest is peanuts by comparison. It's not like it hasn't been spelled out to you previouslywww.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4204028;search_string=social%20security%20medicare;#4204028 Regardless John. They want the budget cut without effecting the big 3. You decided for yourself that they are uninformed. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. Maybe they just want to see if anyone in DC is willing to cut anything at all. You might want to climb down from the ivory tower now and again and get some street level perspective on things.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #48 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteRepublican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. I don't see how this is partisan - it's pretty much everyone There are a lot of non Republicans who support significant cuts to the defense budget, which is, as you well know, roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. We could cut it 50% and still far outspend any likely (or even unlikely) foe. there are a lot of republicans (fiscal conservatives, not those right wing versions of democrats) that agree with that too - they also want to cut the other items ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #49 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuote Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? We're very close to the day where people will be asked to make a very simple choice: 1) pay more taxes 2) or dramatically cut the size of the military. Soc Sec, and Medicare (medi-everything) And the longer we put off that decision, the harder option #2 gets to be agreed, with my adds ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #50 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? We're very close to the day where people will be asked to make a very simple choice: 1) pay more taxes 2) or dramatically cut the size of the military. Soc Sec, and Medicare (medi-everything) And the longer we put off that decision, the harder option #2 gets to be agreed, with my adds Social Security can't be cut - for one, it's not even running in the deficit yet, and it has promised benefits. Unless we're going to just write off the collected surplus of it and switch to pay as we go, the cost reductions with SS come with increasing the age, or a very unpopular means testings (ie, punish those who saved responsibly). Medicare in concept can be cut, but in reality...let's give up on this fantasy about cutting waste. That's been trumpeted for decades. But do we need F-35s? Or more F-22s? Or more than a few hundred nukes? UAVs are a lot cheaper. It's great having fighter planes that allow us to eliminate enemy fighters before they can even see us, but air superiority hasn't been a challenge in the past several wars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
matthewcline 0 #32 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe Country has a Spending Issue, lets get that under control then we can debate taxes. The nation has a cashflow problem. Cash flows both ways, in and out. Let's try to fix the cashflow problem. Sure, it flows out more than it takes in. We should only spend what we have come in. But as the Gov has never had to be accountable, that won't happen. Matt Well, IMO Keynes had it right - (A) run a deficit when times are bad, and (B) repay with a surplus when times are good. Trouble, is the government regularly does part (A) but rarely follows up with part (B). Only during Clinton's term can I recall any attempt at (B). Have we actually had a true surplus since '41? I agree with your points. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #33 August 1, 2012 How many presidential and congressional salaries are we currently covering? Not to mention when you look at some of those payouts...it's just unreal to give over a million dollars to a member of our government. I can't ever understand that. Corrine Brown for one.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #34 August 1, 2012 QuoteHow many presidential and congressional salaries are we currently covering? Not to mention when you look at some of those payouts...it's just unreal to give over a million dollars to a member of our government. I can't ever understand that. Corrine Brown for one.... I think you are confusing the congressperson's salary with the cost of running the office. The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #35 August 1, 2012 http://www.legistorm.com/member/148/Rep_Corrine_Brown/146.html I think this is just one quarter's salaries for the Staff. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #36 August 1, 2012 You're correct, I misunderstood the numbers. I still say we need serious cuts in the administrative costs...like everywhere else. This will require cuts to everything and tax increases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #37 August 1, 2012 QuoteYou're correct, I misunderstood the numbers. I still say we need serious cuts in the administrative costs...like everywhere else. This will require cuts to everything and tax increases. OK, but still the BIG SPENDING is overwhelmingly in just 3 areas, each of which has a strong constituency: defense, SocSec and Medicare. All the rest combined is still far less than these three. If it weren't so sad it would be funny to see Republican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. Read the thread title.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 August 1, 2012 QuoteRepublican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. I don't see how this is partisan - it's pretty much everyone ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #39 August 1, 2012 Want to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #40 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteRepublican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. I don't see how this is partisan - it's pretty much everyone There are a lot of non Republicans who support significant cuts to the defense budget, which is, as you well know, roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. We could cut it 50% and still far outspend any likely (or even unlikely) foe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #41 August 1, 2012 QuoteWant to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 August 1, 2012 Quote I'd like to see Congress (all of them) penalized for failing to do their job. If they can't get a budget in on time, no pay. For them or their staff. One possible result of this is similar to how the health care bill was passed. 900 pages, no time to read it, passed on partisan voting lines. California has the no budget, no pay law. So they tried to pull a fast one. Got real interesting when the Secretary with authority refused to accept it, saying it was not a legitimate budget and therefore he would withhold the checks. The most effective tool for (err, against) Congress are automatic cuts that are across the board. It's a very crude hammer as a fix, but it's about the only thing that will force them to talk...unless they talk and simply agree to halt the cuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #43 August 1, 2012 Quote...unless they talk and simply agree to halt the cuts. Which is exactly what I predicted would happen. And here we are. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #44 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteWant to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class? Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #45 August 1, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Want to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class? Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? No, I'm suggesting that you can't make cuts of any significance without cutting SS, Medicare and/or defense. All the rest is peanuts by comparison. It's not like it hasn't been spelled out to you previouslywww.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4204028;search_string=social%20security%20medicare;#4204028... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 August 1, 2012 Quote Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? We're very close to the day where people will be asked to make a very simple choice: 1) pay more taxes 2) or dramatically cut the size of the military. And the longer we put off that decision, the harder option #2 gets to be because we can't lay off millions in the military and the subcontractors all at once, so really it will become a mandatory tax hike. People want to live in the 80s, but we can no longer afford or justify a super power defense budget. It is actually making us weaker due to the deficit it causes. We'd be better off shifting to a defense sized for our defensive needs, not our long standing Cold War need/wish to be able to project power across the globe. Other countries may realize they liked freeloading off of us...they can build their own abilities then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #47 August 1, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Want to see the government cut the federal budget but do not support reductions in military spending, Social Security or Medicare. I'm amazed that you read what you want to read and disregard what is written. This quote mentions nothing about deficit reduction or a balanced budget. Read it again. It's very doable. Cutting 100% of discretionary spending makes an insignificant difference to the fiscal problems facing this country. Ever think of taking a math class? Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? No, I'm suggesting that you can't make cuts of any significance without cutting SS, Medicare and/or defense. All the rest is peanuts by comparison. It's not like it hasn't been spelled out to you previouslywww.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4204028;search_string=social%20security%20medicare;#4204028 Regardless John. They want the budget cut without effecting the big 3. You decided for yourself that they are uninformed. Perhaps they are, perhaps not. Maybe they just want to see if anyone in DC is willing to cut anything at all. You might want to climb down from the ivory tower now and again and get some street level perspective on things.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteRepublican seniors demanding spending cuts, as long as it doesn't involve defense, their SocSec or their Medicare. I don't see how this is partisan - it's pretty much everyone There are a lot of non Republicans who support significant cuts to the defense budget, which is, as you well know, roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. We could cut it 50% and still far outspend any likely (or even unlikely) foe. there are a lot of republicans (fiscal conservatives, not those right wing versions of democrats) that agree with that too - they also want to cut the other items ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuote Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? We're very close to the day where people will be asked to make a very simple choice: 1) pay more taxes 2) or dramatically cut the size of the military. Soc Sec, and Medicare (medi-everything) And the longer we put off that decision, the harder option #2 gets to be agreed, with my adds ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #50 August 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Are you suggesting that we can't cut the federal budget without cutting defense, MC, SS? We're very close to the day where people will be asked to make a very simple choice: 1) pay more taxes 2) or dramatically cut the size of the military. Soc Sec, and Medicare (medi-everything) And the longer we put off that decision, the harder option #2 gets to be agreed, with my adds Social Security can't be cut - for one, it's not even running in the deficit yet, and it has promised benefits. Unless we're going to just write off the collected surplus of it and switch to pay as we go, the cost reductions with SS come with increasing the age, or a very unpopular means testings (ie, punish those who saved responsibly). Medicare in concept can be cut, but in reality...let's give up on this fantasy about cutting waste. That's been trumpeted for decades. But do we need F-35s? Or more F-22s? Or more than a few hundred nukes? UAVs are a lot cheaper. It's great having fighter planes that allow us to eliminate enemy fighters before they can even see us, but air superiority hasn't been a challenge in the past several wars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
