rehmwa 2
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>But 3 to 5 years is doable and smart
Go to a 10 year window and I'd support it too.
Go to a 10 year window and I'd support it too.
rushmc 23
Quote>But 3 to 5 years is doable and smart
Go to a 10 year window and I'd support it too.
Well, it seems we both want the same ending
But to sustain a 10 year change period will never fly with those we have in power the the teat sucking media we have
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rehmwa 2
Quote>If you have a balanced budget amendment, and you get into an economic bubble, you have to spend the money.
yeah - if we can achieve the day when we don't have enough programs to suck up the income - ........
that would be a huge problem. we wouldn't do anything silly like pay down the principle or reduce the tax burden or anything like that....
...
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
rehmwa 2
Quote>What is dumb is what we have now
Agreed. But replacing it with something dumber is not, IMO, the best plan.
forcing the government to cut spending to match income until we are balanced to the point of worrying about having too much income is 'dumber'..........
...
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
billvon 3,118
>Or they can go out and and start a protection racket. “This is a dangerous place. With
>cuts to the police department, fire, and the budget sequester there no telling what the
>danger would be. Since you are a business owner, I know that you have the resources
>to pay and extra amount to ensure that, um, nothing bad happens, you know what I
>mean?”
Sounds like the "invisible hand of the free market" solving the problem!
But to your point that's already starting:
==============================
Immigration detainee release under fire
By Mariano Castillo and Nick Valencia, CNN
(CNN) . . . Hernandez was one of hundreds of undocumented immigrants released from detention because of looming budget cuts set to take effect Friday absent congressional action.
The package of forced budget cuts, known as sequestration, will mean $85 billion of government-wide cuts.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) decision to move detainees to less costly supervision options was met with backlash from Republicans who accuse the Obama administration of using scare tactics to win a political battle.
"It's abhorrent that President Obama is releasing criminals into our communities to promote his political agenda on sequestration," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, said. "By releasing criminal immigrants onto the streets, the administration is needlessly endangering American lives."
But the White House had no input on the plan, spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.
The decision was made by career ICE employees, an administration official told CNN. The move was made because the agency was preparing its year-end budget and had to take budget cuts into consideration, the official said.
An exact number of released detainees has not been released; ICE characterized it as "several hundred." The population of immigration detainees is currently about 30,700.
Those who have been released are non-criminals or low-risk offenders without serious criminal histories, ICE spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said.
"Detainees with serious criminal histories are a detention priority and have not been released," she said.
Another ICE official reiterated that all of those released remain in deportation proceedings, released on an order of supervision.
Some of those released will be on intensive supervision, such as ankle monitors, while others will just have weekly check-ins with an ICE officer, the official said.
===========================
>cuts to the police department, fire, and the budget sequester there no telling what the
>danger would be. Since you are a business owner, I know that you have the resources
>to pay and extra amount to ensure that, um, nothing bad happens, you know what I
>mean?”
Sounds like the "invisible hand of the free market" solving the problem!
But to your point that's already starting:
==============================
Immigration detainee release under fire
By Mariano Castillo and Nick Valencia, CNN
(CNN) . . . Hernandez was one of hundreds of undocumented immigrants released from detention because of looming budget cuts set to take effect Friday absent congressional action.
The package of forced budget cuts, known as sequestration, will mean $85 billion of government-wide cuts.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) decision to move detainees to less costly supervision options was met with backlash from Republicans who accuse the Obama administration of using scare tactics to win a political battle.
"It's abhorrent that President Obama is releasing criminals into our communities to promote his political agenda on sequestration," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, said. "By releasing criminal immigrants onto the streets, the administration is needlessly endangering American lives."
But the White House had no input on the plan, spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.
The decision was made by career ICE employees, an administration official told CNN. The move was made because the agency was preparing its year-end budget and had to take budget cuts into consideration, the official said.
An exact number of released detainees has not been released; ICE characterized it as "several hundred." The population of immigration detainees is currently about 30,700.
Those who have been released are non-criminals or low-risk offenders without serious criminal histories, ICE spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said.
"Detainees with serious criminal histories are a detention priority and have not been released," she said.
Another ICE official reiterated that all of those released remain in deportation proceedings, released on an order of supervision.
Some of those released will be on intensive supervision, such as ankle monitors, while others will just have weekly check-ins with an ICE officer, the official said.
===========================
billvon 3,118
>forcing the government to cut spending to match income until we are balanced to the
>point of worrying about having too much income is 'dumber'..........
No, encouraging them to spend when income increases (which it does cyclically) because they are now in a "use it or lose it" mode is dumb.
>point of worrying about having too much income is 'dumber'..........
No, encouraging them to spend when income increases (which it does cyclically) because they are now in a "use it or lose it" mode is dumb.
rehmwa 2
Quote"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year.
he's wrong, they spend $75,000 this year, they had planned to spend $83,000 next year and propose BIG cuts to reduce it to $81,000 next year
...
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
Bolas 5
Quote>>So a balanced budget amendment?
>Yes
I would support that provided the budget was required to be balanced over a fairly long time (i.e. more than one economic cycle.) Requiring massive spending cuts during a recession would destroy a fragile economy, and the massive government growth that would take place during economic bubbles would do no one any good.
How about instead of a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap indexed to inflation? This way during bubble years the extra could be used for paying down the debt.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
airdvr 210
I don't think we'd need to worry about what happens after the debt has been paid. How would a balanced budget effect the debt?
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
billvon 3,118
>How about instead of a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap indexed to inflation?
Not a bad idea. Add a few exceptions (i.e. if China bombs us the cap comes off) and that might work pretty well.
Not a bad idea. Add a few exceptions (i.e. if China bombs us the cap comes off) and that might work pretty well.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteAdd a few exceptions (i.e. if China bombs us the cap comes off) and that might work pretty well.
Except that such exceptions will always be there, or will always be manufactured. The budget was sorta balanced-ish prior to 9/11. How's that worked out for us since then?
wmw999 2,588
Yep, if we make exceptions a pain in the ass that require cooperation, that might be better in the long run.
We're fighting a whole lot of inertia here. It's always grown, because it's always been OK. But just lopping the budget and saying that people have to suck it up is a recipe for social disaster (really).
Invigorating though it may seem to be able to anticipating using one's guns to shoot down all the marauding previously-entitled, it's really not the American way.
Wendy P.
We're fighting a whole lot of inertia here. It's always grown, because it's always been OK. But just lopping the budget and saying that people have to suck it up is a recipe for social disaster (really).
Invigorating though it may seem to be able to anticipating using one's guns to shoot down all the marauding previously-entitled, it's really not the American way.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
quade 4
Neither. It's an asshole problem.
No organism can exist with only assholes. You also have to feed the beast.
No organism can exist with only assholes. You also have to feed the beast.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuote>>So a balanced budget amendment?
>Yes
I would support that provided the budget was required to be balanced over a fairly long time (i.e. more than one economic cycle.) Requiring massive spending cuts during a recession would destroy a fragile economy, and the massive government growth that would take place during economic bubbles would do no one any good.
How about instead of a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap indexed to inflation? This way during bubble years the extra could be used for paying down the debt.
the fact that you even have to float such an amazingly common sense item out to avoid the total blind obtuseness of the Billvon scenario is pretty clear cut evidence that we are all screwed to semantically constrained idiocy.
...
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
rushmc 23
QuoteNeither. It's an asshole problem.
No organism can exist with only assholes. You also have to feed the beast.
If it is fed and it does not have an asshole
It will explode
I guess there is no problem of that happening given the govenment support often seen
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Andy9o8 2
QuoteNo organism can exist with only assholes.
You've never worked in a law firm, have you?
billvon 3,118
>the fact that you even have to float such an amazingly common sense item out to
>avoid the total blind obtuseness of the Billvon scenario is pretty clear cut evidence that
>we are all screwed to semantically constrained idiocy.
We were in danger of having an intelligent discussion. Fortunately you've injected enough angry condescension to avoid such a descent into rationality.
>avoid the total blind obtuseness of the Billvon scenario is pretty clear cut evidence that
>we are all screwed to semantically constrained idiocy.
We were in danger of having an intelligent discussion. Fortunately you've injected enough angry condescension to avoid such a descent into rationality.
rehmwa 2
Quote>the fact that you even have to float such an amazingly common sense item out to
>avoid the total blind obtuseness of the Billvon scenario is pretty clear cut evidence that
>we are all screwed to semantically constrained idiocy.
We were in danger of having an intelligent discussion. Fortunately you've injected enough angry condescension to avoid such a descent into rationality.
I've learned by watching
intelligent conversations don't start with "hey, if we take in extra in a good year we'll have to spend $500 for a hammer and deal with wildly growing government"
maybe instead of going to the 'gee whiz I'm clever' to start with, how about skipping to the real issue - that congress is crooked enough to do exactly what you said..... and that's a much bigger issue to solve than to try and be clever and try to figure out how to constrain the problem statement to get around that real issue. Trying to define the legislation is a tacit acknowledgment that we're helpless to fix the real issue.
is that deep enough
...
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
rehmwa 2
no,, belay that - sorry to be a smart ass.
Bolas' note is a good one.
this is all common sense stuff though and the idea that our leadership is so inept, so opportunistic, and so crooked, that this is kind of thing people talk about has really pushed the cynicism button
so back to Bolas' note
However, in the down years, I don't think you take out a loan to cover it (analogous to paying off the principle in good years, then this would imply to could take more debt in bad years), you still have to reduce spending. This would drive us to the most efficient government over time. If you start playing balancing act between good and bad years, we just return to today's state where politicians just claim that EVERY year is a bad year and thus increasing debt becomes the norm for us frogs being boiled.
...
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
Bolas' note is a good one.
this is all common sense stuff though and the idea that our leadership is so inept, so opportunistic, and so crooked, that this is kind of thing people talk about has really pushed the cynicism button
so back to Bolas' note
QuoteHow about instead of a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap indexed to inflation? This way during bubble years the extra could be used for paying down the debt.
However, in the down years, I don't think you take out a loan to cover it (analogous to paying off the principle in good years, then this would imply to could take more debt in bad years), you still have to reduce spending. This would drive us to the most efficient government over time. If you start playing balancing act between good and bad years, we just return to today's state where politicians just claim that EVERY year is a bad year and thus increasing debt becomes the norm for us frogs being boiled.
...
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
ShcShc11 0
See latest 2012-2013 IMF reports on austerity measures on the different countries.
Each dollar cut resulted in a fall of worker output of approximately 1.2 to 1.5$
Austerity during zero-bound economy does not make sense. Kind of like a construction worker refusing to pay to fix his right arm in the name of "budget cuts".
Cheers!
Shc
Each dollar cut resulted in a fall of worker output of approximately 1.2 to 1.5$
Austerity during zero-bound economy does not make sense. Kind of like a construction worker refusing to pay to fix his right arm in the name of "budget cuts".
Cheers!
Shc
where are we reducing actual spending such that the total net dollars comes down? (not the rate of increase, the actual dollars)
I know congressmen and the pres like to say "We cut a Billion dollars in the A Program" but they never mention that to get that agreement they had to increase the B and C programs by 2 Billion
...
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
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites