What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

MinnFan said:
Its funny to see the outrage over signs now. Apparently this doesn't qualify
Click to expand...
No, they do, crazies are found in all walks of life.

And I got those images from a simple search for "stupid teaparty signs", that it was huffington post never mattered to me. Unless you are claiming because they are on huffington they are somehow all doctored and fake, thus they don't matter.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

dropthatpuck said:
Or, or, or wickid smaat people could also infer that cutting taxes doesn't mean "eliminating" taxes?
Click to expand...

Regardless, even if not eliminating taxes, if you cut taxes but you don't cut defense spending (or other spending) then you're being fiscally irresponsible.

We just spent 10 billion dollars on a hole in NV! We finally stopped doing it.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

MinnFan said:
Its funny to see the outrage over signs now. Apparently this doesn't qualify

bush_hangringo.jpg


or this
bush_deathto.jpg
Click to expand...

What outrage? I've always found sign-toting protestors (e.g., attention whores) of any political stripe to be pretty amusing, and more self-indulgent than those who actually vote and otherwise participate in the political process.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

ScottM said:
What outrage? I've always found sign-toting protestors (e.g., attention whores) of any political stripe to be pretty amusing, and more self-indulgent than those who actually vote and otherwise participate in the political process.
Click to expand...

If voting were public, they'd vote :p
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Priceless said:
So you support the "cut taxes" not the "zero taxes" position?
Click to expand...

Correct. We need to tax for national defense and other minor things intended by the founders and peeps who executed the constitution on their constituents behalf.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

dropthatpuck said:
Correct. We need to tax for national defense and other minor things intended by the founders and peeps who executed the constitution on their constituents behalf.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, but just try cutting Ag subsidies, social security, Medicare, VA benefits, etc. And both major parties are guilty of larding the trough. :mad:
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

dropthatpuck said:
Correct. We need to tax for national defense and other minor things intended by the founders and peeps who executed the constitution on their constituents behalf.
Click to expand...

But do we really need to be spending close to $1 trillion to defend this country? I am no military expert but how vulnerable would we be if we only spent, oh I don't know, half of that?
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

SPIN CONTROL said:
But do we really need to be spending close to $1 trillion to defend this country? I am no military expert but how vulnerable would we be if we only spent, oh I don't know, half of that?
Click to expand...

Not very. However, you've neglected the most important role of the Defense Department which has nothing to do with defending the US (nor even with attacking others), and that is its utility as a foreign policy tool. We could easily defend the US with half the budget, but we'd have to close down essentially all our foreign bases, and that would have drastic diplomatic and economic consequences. I'm not saying that it would be the wrong thing to do, but the effects of a major scale-back like that would have to be very carefully considered.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

ScottM said:
I'm with you, but just try cutting Ag subsidies, social security, Medicare, VA benefits, etc. And both major parties are guilty of larding the trough. :mad:
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Everyone straps on the feedbag when they hit the beltway. I figure people would learn from previous administrations and Congress' - a la the current flock of dems vis-a-vis the GOP in '06.....but that's asking too much.

SPIN CONTROL said:
But do we really need to be spending close to $1 trillion to defend this country? I am no military expert but how vulnerable would we be if we only spent, oh I don't know, half of that?
Click to expand...

I'm with Lynah. Not saying we can't cut something, but our primary expenditure should be defense and relative "foreign affairs".
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

SPIN CONTROL said:
But do we really need to be spending close to $1 trillion to defend this country? I am no military expert but how vulnerable would we be if we only spent, oh I don't know, half of that?
Click to expand...

As much as it is, the current percentage of spending on the military (20%) is historically low. Up until the late 70's nearly half of the federal budget was spent on the military. That not to say that there isn't room for cuts.

The thing that needs to change most is the 60% of the federal budget that is purely transfer payments. That is simply unsustainable.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I always loved that we live in a country that has people starving on the streets and we subsidize farmers not to grow food so as not to screw with the market. Trust me I get it, I know why we do it but if you take a step back and look at it it is friggin absurd to think about.

As for defense I understand we need to have troops in foreign countries and that is fine, but it is the numbers that seem a bit out of whack ya know. I mean doesn't 20k troops in Germany seem a bit high? Can't we negotiate that down a little bit, won't 10k do the job? If we were able to cut down (not out but down) the amount of that type of troop that would make a nice dent.

This is where Obama can really make a statement, and who knows maybe get some conservatives to back him. I doubt he is going to do anything super liberal for a while to let the smoke clear on Health Care "Reform" so why not make another effort to unmuddy the waters. There has to be something they agree on once you get past the rhetoric so go after it. It won't appease them, but it might keep things on an even keel for a while we all need a break from the BS.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I believe the biggest federal outlays are Medicare, Social Security, Defense and Debt payments.

#1) Obama just tried to address (lets put aside predictions for now and see how it goes).

#2) Has a dedicated funded stream which will keep it solvent until the 2040's, and can be easily adjusted by means testing the benefits.

#3) Despite being politically toxic, cutting waste in defense spending needs to be done. This whole (% of GDP) argument is nonsense. If we aren't fighting WWII or keeping up with the Soviets, defense ought to be a smaller % of the budget, especially considering the US defense budget dwarfs all other countries. Do we need troops in Germany? Can South Korea maybe defend itself now 60 after the war? Are there some weapons/planes, etc we don't need?

#4) Cannot be addressed until #1 and #3, and some tax increases are implemented.

Now there are other things to be done. Earmarks, Tort Reform, Farm subsidies, Oil company subsidies, etc. However, you can't address the deficit problem strictly on the spending side of things. Both Bush I and Clinton realized this, and its no coincidence that the budget was balanced by the 2nd Clinton term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top