He proposed it, before he said he would veto any bill getting rid of it, followed by he denided proposing it before he was against it before admiting he did proposed it

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The "Welfare Part" is that the military gets each and every nifty neato new toy that they ask for Whether they actually need it or not (and whether the soldiers on the ground actually asked for it or not).

I don't think they are given nearly what they want, barely what they need.

There is no end to what they want; they're utterly bottomless.

As to what they need, the military always has to fight a war, as that's their raison d'etre. They may want us to think they need every @#$%^ aircraft carrier battle group and fighter plane that they want to deploy all over the globe, but perceptive minds know that there's only so many of those truly needed to keep our children safe in their beds at night; the rest is just Welfare to the military-industrial complex.

If, in the course of sucking up and spending all those trillions of dollars (and thousands of our children's lives) for those advanced weapons systems and wars in Timbuktu, soldiers in the field are lacking enough body armor and armored humvees, the blame for that outrage lies mainly with the generals and admirals who divert those funds away from the troops so that they (the brass) can have their toys and global projections of power, and the Halliburtons (barely removed from I.G. Farben) are enriched beyond all avarice.

There's your answer, ma'am.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I wonder if any of the "cuts" impact the Free Shit Army.

Not even a drop in the bucket compared to the Unlimited Welfare US military.

Not really fair, Andy. No doubt, the Defense Department isn't the most svelt of government agencies, but most defense spending is directed by your congress critters. Kill that turd of an F-35 and sequester goes away right there. Quit forcing us to take equipment we didn't want or need and you can save loads. Congress mandates that money be spent on things we didn't ask for and then we get blamed.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

The "Welfare Part" is that the military gets each and every nifty neato new toy that they ask for Whether they actually need it or not (and whether the soldiers on the ground actually asked for it or not).

I don't think they are given nearly what they want, barely what they need.

There is no end to what they want; they're utterly bottomless.

As to what they need, the military always has to fight a war, as that's their raison d'etre. They may want us to think they need every @#$%^ aircraft carrier battle group and fighter plane that they want to deploy all over the globe, but perceptive minds know that there's only so many of those truly needed to keep our children safe in their beds at night; the rest is just Welfare to the military-industrial complex.

If, in the course of sucking up and spending all those trillions of dollars (and thousands of our children's lives) for those advanced weapons systems and wars in Timbuktu, soldiers in the field are lacking enough body armor and armored humvees, the blame for that outrage lies mainly with the generals and admirals who divert those funds away from the troops so that they (the brass) can have their toys and global projections of power, and the Halliburtons (barely removed from I.G. Farben) are enriched beyond all avarice.

There's your answer, ma'am.

Sorry. Went to the end and saw this.

Actually, we don't ask for half of what we get. Congress rams it down our throats. I still have a duffle bag full of stuff that I packed before deploying to Iraq. I knew I would not need anything in that bag. It is still packed and locked. I don't even remember what is in there. It was all clearly stuff that some contractor made money off of, but every Soldier knew was unnecessary.

There are lots of programs we have to take to get the things we actually do ask for. There are lots of things we need and don't get and don't need, but get. It leads back to your representatives and what gets their supporters jobs and their contracting buddies lucrative deals. Please don't blame the military. We are just the excuse and the punching bag.

If the Department of Defense was allowed, we could take the budget cuts with ease. But we are not allowed to cut the projects Congress forced on us. They tell us how the money must be spent.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[tkhayes 348]

Republicans are just as bad. Now they want to take credit for cutting spending but will blame BHO for any specific cuts in one of their own pork-barrel projects that got the axe.

I could care less. We are cutting just enough spending to make fuck-all difference, but the 'drama' continues on Capitol Hill and apparently here in the forum as well.

REAL spending cuts would amount to several hundred billion to start. No one is talking about that. On either side.

REAL tax changes would generate hundreds of billions more in revenues, and we would end the deficit before the end of his next term.

Can't have that happen because it would be called 'success' and both parties are still ABSOLUTELY against whatever the other side is for.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Republicans are just as bad. Now they want to take credit for cutting spending but will blame BHO for any specific cuts in one of their own pork-barrel projects that got the axe.

I could care less. We are cutting just enough spending to make fuck-all difference, but the 'drama' continues on Capitol Hill and apparently here in the forum as well.

REAL spending cuts would amount to several hundred billion to start. No one is talking about that. On either side.

REAL tax changes would generate hundreds of billions more in revenues, and we would end the deficit before the end of his next term.

Can't have that happen because it would be called 'success' and both parties are still ABSOLUTELY against whatever the other side is for.

If those REAL tax changes are rate cuts to everyone, which are proven to increase revenues, then you and I are in total agreement

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The sequester

Are you confused?

BTW, it started Saturday morning and the sun came up

We need about a dozen more sequesters
Go Obama

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sperling-admits-obama-misled-debate-president-did-propose-sequester_705015.html

Your high-school English teacher must be stabbing herself in the face.

SOOOOOO much content

Thanks for playing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

...which are proven to increase revenues,...

Where are they 'proven' to increase revenues? I do not know any model in any part of society that increases revenues by cutting revenues.....

Taxation is the primary form of revenue for the government. The government therefore does not increase their revenue by cutting taxes.

It's one of the basic 'arithmetic' things I learned in 3rd grade.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

...which are proven to increase revenues,...

Where are they 'proven' to increase revenues? I do not know any model in any part of society that increases revenues by cutting revenues.....

Taxation is the primary form of revenue for the government. The government therefore does not increase their revenue by cutting taxes.

It's one of the basic 'arithmetic' things I learned in 3rd grade.

You should get your pen out again then

Government revenues come from taxed income
Lower the rates and income goes up as this stimulates the economy. Proven, not debateable

Increase income in this way and the government has more "revenue" (this new tax term makes me sick)

Cut the tax rates, lower spending, and we will get out of this mess
The only way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

I'm confused. The new Sec State just promised 60Mil to Syrian rebels. CNN just said we released 250Mil to Egypt. Both countries have oil we would gladly buy lots of if they let us.

Why are we worried about an automatic cut of less than 2.5% of the budget?

If we are still giving money away, I can't believe we are on the brink of the abyss.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm confused. The new Sec State just promised 60Mil to Syrian rebels. CNN just said we released 250Mil to Egypt. Both countries have oil we would gladly buy lots of if they let us.

Why are we worried about an automatic cut of less than 2.5% of the budget?

If we are still giving money away, I can't believe we are on the brink of the abyss.

Exaactly

And we need to remember that the 2.5% cut is a cut to the automatic increases from the basline budgeting procress that gaurentees budget growth

It is sickening that the public and the media buy into this crap

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

The U.S. Government will always spend whatever revenue they get. Why would you want to give them more? All they will do is find something else to spend it on. Or do you still hold onto the archaic belief that this time it will be different, all we have to do is just raise taxes a little more? Surely you don't believe this, do you?

[rushmc 23]

More reason I posted this thread
The time line is from Limbaugh
Which include quote from our President

Quote

Now, two weeks before the election, Obama went on TV in the last presidential debate, October 22, and basically lied. He said that he didn't want the sequester to happen. This was in a debate with Romney. I'm sure you'll remember this as I refresh your synapses, as it were. He didn't want the sequester to happen and he said, in fact, it wouldn't happen. He accused the Republicans of creating the sequester. When you go back and look at this interview that he gave to the Des Moines Register, that's how you know that he's lying somewhere. He either lied to the Des Moines Register or he lied in the presidential debate.

In the debate, again, October 22nd, 2012, Obama said he didn't want the sequester, and it wouldn't happen. The very next day, October 23rd, 2012, is when Obama gave an interview to the editors of the Des Moines Register. And in that interview, I want to quote what President Obama said.

"[T]he good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?"

I want you to listen to what comes next. This is in quotes. "So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place ... we're going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business. It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain."

From the 2012 Des Moines Registrer Interview
The time line is from Limbaugh
Which include quote from our President

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

If those REAL tax changes are rate cuts to everyone, which are proven to increase revenues, then you and I are in total agreement

Incorrect. You simply parrot those who fail to take inflation and population growth into account.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I'm confused. The new Sec State just promised 60Mil to Syrian rebels. CNN just said we released 250Mil to Egypt. Both countries have oil we would gladly buy lots of if they let us.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

Both Syria and Egypt are pretty low on the oil production totem pole.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If those REAL tax changes are rate cuts to everyone, which are proven to increase revenues, then you and I are in total agreement

Incorrect. You simply parrot those who fail to take inflation and population growth into account.

I take history into account

And in this case, I am on the correct side of history

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

President Barack Obama learned in his first term that he couldn't change Washington from the inside, saying in the heat of his re-election race: “You can only change it from the outside.” Months later, his former White House aides and campaign advisers are embracing Obama's words as a call to action.

Obama veterans are building a wide network of deep-pocketed groups and consulting firms independent of government, the Democratic Party and traditional liberal groups, a sweeping — if not unprecedented — effort outside the White House gates aimed at promoting the president's agenda and shaping his legacy.

From campaign strategists to online gurus and policy hands to press agents, Obama loyalists — including many who discovered that a second term yields fewer administration job vacancies — are slicing his agenda into smaller parts and launching highly targeted efforts on subjects including healthcare, job creation, and electoral politics.

The lynchpin of the effort is Organizing for Action, a nonprofit run by former Obama advisers that has essentially transformed his re-election campaign into a grass-roots machine to support his initiatives. In its early stages, the group is raising millions from big and small donors alike and whipping up support for issues like gun control and an immigration overhaul.

Known by its initials, OFA is chaired by Jim Messina, a former White House aide who ran Obama's 2012 campaign, and several former Obama aides sit on its board. David Plouffe, who until February served as Obama's senior adviser, is expected to join the board soon.

OFA's close ties to the West Wing and its control over the former campaign's resources has raised questions about where the nonprofit group ends and the White House begins. The group controls Obama's massive email list and also his campaign Twitter handle, which has more than 27 million followers and frequently tweets links to his government website.

As a tax-exempt entity, OFA by law can't intervene in elections and is subject to strict limits on lobbying. The group accepts unlimited donations from individuals and corporations but plans to release the names of its donors.

The corporate funding is a shift: Many of the same operatives involved with OFA were once loud critics, along with Obama, of big money- and corporate-fueled entities that emerged after a series of court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, loosened restrictions on money and politics.

The arrangement has also opened the White House to criticism that contributors, in exchange for supporting the groups, could receive special access to Obama that the public is denied. White House press secretary Jay Carney fielded repeated questions last week over whether bundlers who raised $500,000 or more for OFA were promised quarterly meetings with the president — a claim OFA disputed.

“They have created, literally, a cottage industry solely devoted to access and making money off the access,” said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

As advocacy groups, OFA and the smaller organizations can coordinate with the White House on messaging and tactics. Carney said the administration interacts with a variety of such groups, adding that administration officials may appear at OFA events but won't be raising money.

An OFA “founders' summit” for donors on March 13 at a Washington hotel will include addresses by Messina, Plouffe, and others, according to an invitation obtained by The Associated Press. The following day will include briefings on immigration, gun control and climate change, with former Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson expected to attend.

But when OFA asks supporters to cut a check, it will be competing with a growing list of pro-Obama factions making appeals to a limited pool of Democratic donors.

Business Forward, a 3-year-old trade group that has facilitated meetings between businesses and Obama officials, is ramping up operation as a liberal counterweight to the conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Business Forward is funded by corporate money that was banished from Obama's campaign coffers in 2008 and 2012.

More than 50 corporate members pay $25,000 or $50,000 a year to be involved in briefings between Obama administration officials and business leaders, small businesses and entrepreneurs. Its members include AT&T and Microsoft, which donated to Obama's inaugural committee, and Citi, Comcast and Facebook, whose executives served on Obama's jobs council.

“The goal is to bring new people into the process and help them tell Washington how to create jobs and accelerate our economic recovery,” said Jim Doyle, Business Forward's president.

On healthcare, former White House official Anne Filipic recently took control of a nonprofit called Enroll America, which plans a massive push to get people to sign up for insurance under Obama's healthcare law, a key part of his legacy. The group is preparing for the opening of new insurance exchanges in October with on-the-ground organizing, online efforts and paid advertising.

Another team of Obama campaign aides, including field director Jeremy Bird and battleground state director Mitch Stewart, have formed a consulting firm called 270 Strategies that aims to bring grass-roots organizing to political and industry clients. One early project, dubbed Battleground Texas, has set a long-term goal to make GOP-heavy Texas competitive for Democrats.

Although there's no one group formally coordinating the efforts, outside organizations allied with Obama hold regular check-in meetings and conference calls. Representatives compare notes about strategy, priorities and budgets.

“Many of us have spent, at this point, six years or longer together,” said Teddy Goff, Obama's 2012 digital director, who is not affiliated with the fledgling bodies. “I have no doubt that people are talking to their old friends and making sure they're efficient as possible.”

And while the various groups supporting Obama's agenda operate independently, the overlap in tactics, messaging, and staff is tough to miss. For example, Blue State Digital, a firm founded by the campaign's digital strategist, Joe Rospars, is providing the same technology platform the campaign used in both OFA and Battleground Texas.

The blurring of the lines between outside groups, the campaign, and the White House has rubbed some the wrong way. Critics say it's a sign that Obama has reversed course since rebuking the role of money in politics during his first campaign and at the start of his presidency.

“Organizing for Action is unlike any entity we have ever seen before tied to a president,” said Fred Wertheimer, a campaign finance reform advocate with Democracy 21, a Washington nonprofit. “This group is so tied to Obama himself that it creates opportunities for corporations and individuals to buy corrupting influence with the administration — and, at a minimum, to create the appearance of such influence.”


© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Government revenues come from taxed income
Lower the rates and income goes up as this stimulates the economy. Proven, not debateable

Completely debatable. Tax rates are already low and have been low for years. where's the jobs? Income amongst corporation and the weaithist in the country is through the roof (DOW this week). Where's the jobs?

I agre that more jobs means more income, more tax base, easier on govt revenue stream but the fact remains that having more money (less taxes) does not equate to more jobs for the people and it never has in the history of economics.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The U.S. Government will always spend whatever revenue they get.

And they will spend even when they do not get. Bush cut taxes and fought two wars without any plan to pay for it. (or the tax cuts). The 'republican side of me' says at the very least we should have passed tax bills to pay for the wars.

They would have ended in far less time if you and I got the bill up front.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Government revenues come from taxed income
Lower the rates and income goes up as this stimulates the economy. Proven, not debateable

Completely debatable. Tax rates are already low and have been low for years. where's the jobs? Income amongst corporation and the weaithist in the country is through the roof (DOW this week). Where's the jobs?

I agre that more jobs means more income, more tax base, easier on govt revenue stream but the fact remains that having more money (less taxes) does not equate to more jobs for the people and it never has in the history of economics.

Yes
It is open for debate

I still feel it is the best and fastest way to go
I think the DOW and the rich are doing well because the Fed is pumping billion per month into the system. Gotto go somewhere. What will happen when it stops? I dont know

Did you see the CBO projection for record revenues this year?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Great, so we both agree that the less money government has to spend, the better off we all will be.

[tkhayes 348]

Not actually what i said. Giving them less money simply means we run up a deficit. giving them unlimited money not practical either.

You and I just disagree on what valid spending cuts and tax plans are.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Great, so we both agree that the less money government has to spend, the better off we all will be.

Exactly. Because austerity and cuts in spending is working so well in Europe.

Remster

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Great, so we both agree that the less money government has to spend, the better off we all will be.

Exactly. Because austerity and cuts in spending is working so well in Europe.

Please present your solution.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Not actually what i said. Giving them less money simply means we run up a deficit. giving them unlimited money not practical either.

You and I just disagree on what valid spending cuts and tax plans are.

Right, if we could just get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed, we'd be good to go, right?

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Great, so we both agree that the less money government has to spend, the better off we all will be.

Exactly. Because austerity and cuts in spending is working so well in Europe.

We might as well swallow the bitter pill and admit that it will take both spending cuts and tax increases to solve this problem. There will be protests. There will be pain. I learned last week just how bad the government squeaked when we wanted to take a little over 2%.

So, Barry got his tax increases. I challenge anyone here to point to where he has ever said he would cut spending on anything. Not closing loopholes...that's a tax increase in disguise.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne