Losing 200,000 jobs is OK?

[Synthaholic]

Why is it such a crazy notion for the government to not be allowed to spend more than what they're bringing in?

They should work on bringing more in. Eliminate corporate welfare, and make billionaires pay their fair share.

 

[uscitizen]

The government has to be run like a business. If it doesn't have the money, then it has to let some people go. (Preferably starting with the bosses)

The reason why your food, gas , and clothing prices are up is because the dickheads running the government are NOT running it like a business.

If the government were run like a business, defense (Like security) would be outsourced and a relatively small part of the budget.

Like 5% or so. Labor expenses would be much higher..since benefits are included.

So..not a bad idea.

I'm cool with it.

We are already outsourcing a fair bit of our military. How did that work out in Abu Grabass?

America should not have mercenaries.

 

[uscitizen]

Why is it such a crazy notion for the government to not be allowed to spend more than what they're bringing in?

Perhaps part of the problem is they do not bring in enough?

 

[BrianH]

Why is it such a crazy notion for the government to not be allowed to spend more than what they're bringing in?

Perhaps part of the problem is they do not bring in enough?

I agree, but like any household, if you're not bringing "enough" in, then you don't overspend your means. If you do then you toil with financial failure.

 

[mdn2000]

The dickheads running government caused a drought in Mexico (food), turmoil in the middle east (gas) and a spike in cotton prices (clothes)?

No they caused lower confidence in the dollar. The dollar is worth less so buys less cotton, gasoline and food.

The dollar is stronger now than when Obama took office. You'll need a different explanation.

Perhaps your advocating some deflation, which would help the dollar buy more?

As for you claims about Egypt, that's just absurd. Whatever would you have them do? Stop a democratic uprising by throwing their weight behind an autocratic deadbeat dictator who pillaged his own people? Sorry, the 1980's are over.

The Dollar is stronger, hardly, its pretty much the same here in Brazil. What is noticeable is everything costs more. I buy less with the same exchange rate, prices have gone up dramatically.

An Autocratic deadbeat dictator yet Obama honored the man by giving a speech in Cairo.

Seems that Obama did throw his weight behind the "Deadbeat dictator" and now that the political tide has changed Obama and his supporters make a different claim.

Anyhow, do not get me wrong, I have said the problem we have in the Middle East is appeasement and sending women there in roles as Politicians.

The Arab will do the opposite of what a woman says, the King of Jordan says the only reason he went to war with Israel is he had to save face after Golda Mier warned him not to attack. I beleive it was King Abdullah, as told in Moyshe Dayan's book.

How about our Ambassador to Iraq under Bush sr. That was a woman, what was the end result, war.

So how do we follow that up, Madeline Albright, Condolezza Rice, and now Hillary Clinton. Almost seems we want to fight in the Middle East with our choices of politicians.

Arabs never negotiate with women.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OK. Let us defund the biggest single payroll in the government. All you Marines, soldiers, airman, and sailors go home now. We are going to save a bunch of money.

I'm not against cutting defense spending. I don't agree with cutting it to the point where we can't defend ourselves, but I would be all for avoiding what Eisenhower called the "Industrial Military Complex."

Now I am with you there. That kind of talk will get you the cold shoulder in most circles, as that is most of the pork in the government. The military-industrial complex is the single largest lobbying group in of our government.

No, I was not serious about totally defunding our military, however, it is the biggest single expense, and does little, in relationship to the budget, to increase the wealth of the nation.

I used to think that until I investigated the national budget on federal spending: Discretionary Spending stands at 19%, Defense Department is at 20%, while Social Security stands at 20%, and Medicare / Medicaid is 23%. Now these figures do not include the addition of ObamaCare, as the Federal Government tries to get a bigger piece of the pie in their controlling involvement of Health Care. Yes we need to cut back on some military spending and put more responsibility, for the War on Terror, into the hands of existing treaty organizations like NATO. Forget the United Nations, the "Oil for Food" corruption with Iraq proves they can't be depended upon to enforce any resolutions with military force.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm not against cutting defense spending. I don't agree with cutting it to the point where we can't defend ourselves, but I would be all for avoiding what Eisenhower called the "Industrial Military Complex."

Defend ourselves from what? Do you see Switzerland, Australia, France, etc. concerned about defending themselves from the righty boogie man? This country could mobilize itself out of our own population and repell any force brought to bare on our borders. Just sound the alarm.

And if you haven't noticed, the US got it's ass kicked by a bunch of women & kids with rocks and wash pans in the ME, so all that military might doesn't mean shit. Stock all that hardware on military bases for holding points.

If you are referring to George W. Bush sending in troops to Iraq without proper military supplies, that's what cutting military spending would later reap for itself. I served under President Clinton and have witnessed the early retirements and cuts brought onto the military, in an attempt to cut the budget. The result was a weakened military that was lacking on resources.

Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), 1992-2001 (FY1993-FY2001)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB85159.pdf

The FY1993 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 4403, P.L. 102-484) granted temporary authority (which expired on September 30, 2001) for the services to offer early retirements to personnel with more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. TERA was used as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the drawdown.TERA retired pay was calculated in the usual ways except that there is an additional reduction of one percent for every year of service below 20. Part or all of this latter reduction could be restored if the retiree worked in specified public service jobs (such as law enforcement, firefighting, and education) during the period immediately following retirement, until the point at which the retiree would have reached the 20-year mark if he or she had remained in the service.

Clinton Offers $19.5-Billion Package to Help Defense Industry After Cuts : Pentagon: Expansion of high-technology jobs is the primary goal. Little immediate relief is proposed for displaced workers or affected firms. - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times


Clinton also said he will propose allocating almost $4 billion over the next four years for worker retraining programs, including $150 million for government- and employer-sponsored projects to help displaced defense workers.

The program also will include $112 million to help members of the National Guard and reserves who are being dropped from the rolls and to provide severance pay and health benefits for civilian Defense Department employees who may be laid off.

Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military.html
By Lynn Woolley — Posted Dec 21, 2006

In 1994, troops were sent to Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Clinton asked for a Defense increase of just $2.8 billion but Congress approved a decrease of $17.1 billion. The shrinking budget caused sharp reductions at the Pentagon.

There were more peacekeeping missions to come, including in Somalia where 1,800 Marines provided cover for the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers. But the downsizing of the military continued with 40,000 troops removed from Europe. The Base Closure Commission recommended shuttering 79 more bases. Clinton’s budget request for fiscal 1996 was $10.2 billion lower than the prior year.

At this point, we are well into the Clinton presidency and the eleventh straight year of declining military budgets. The president and the Congress have slashed the defense budget to the point where, after adjusting for inflation, it is some 40% less than in 1985 during the second Reagan term.

The year 1996 saw cruise missile strikes against Iraq and 18,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Balkans as part of a NATO force. Clinton sent the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence and three other ships to the Taiwan Strait because of tensions between Taiwan and China. For 1997, Clinton sought another $10 billion reduction, though the bill he eventually signed set aside $244 billion for defense—finally halting the long string of declining budgets, but just barely.

Defense Secretary William Cohen had become concerned about his budget, and so he called for more base closings—and more money. The Joint Chiefs said that unless funding levels could be increased, some weapons systems or overseas deployments would have to be eliminated. In 1999, the budget was at $250 billion—the same year we were using our military to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo.

For fiscal 2000, Defense requested $267.2 billion billion, including a pay raise for soldiers. The USS Cole was bombed and peacekeeping efforts continued in the usual spots like Kosovo and Bosnia. Clinton’s presidency was winding down and his final Defense budget totaled $288 billion with a supplemental bill of $6.5 billon to help pay for all the peacekeeping.

After Bush was elected and the country had suffered the 9/11 attacks, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight a war on terrorism on several fronts. He listed the problems brought on during the Clinton years: lost air and sea lift capacity, two or three years during which nothing was procured for the military, and cuts in R&D.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Defend ourselves from what? Do you see Switzerland, Australia, France, etc. concerned about defending themselves from the righty boogie man? This country could mobilize itself out of our own population and repell any force brought to bare on our borders. Just sound the alarm.

And if you haven't noticed, the US got it's ass kicked by a bunch of women & kids with rocks and wash pans in the ME, so all that military might doesn't mean shit. Stock all that hardware on military bases for holding points.

You've got a mighty broad paint brush shintao. You're comparing a world power to 3 countries that aren't world powers....Also, these countries are SUPREMELY smaller in population to the U.S. Two of those countries you listed got taken over MORE THAN ONCE in the last 100 years by an invading army--guess they should have paid more into defense...

You really think it's our "military might" that can't beat the ME? lol. The reason we can't get shit done is because our military gets sent into combat and then gets its hands tied by politicians. Much like it did in Vietnam...But that's a different story. In case you haven't noticed over the last 50 years, we've pissed off ALOT of other countries who would have no problem having the U.S. not exist. And as far as recruiting the entire nation to fight at the drop of the hat; how are you going to afford to feed them all? How are you going to arm them all? How are you going to clothe them all? That's a pretty big army to sustain without any funding. I guess we'll all bring our rubber-band shooters and fight with those. I guess we'll do like the Chinese did in the Korean War, and what the Russians did in WWII...just send our massess towards machine guns and let them get slaughtered....

Try and dream up any scenario where we could be invaded by a foreign force and not repel it. There are gun shops everywhere you go. There are national guard bases. And there are plenty of Vietnam combat vets like myself to organize people into a fighting machine on short order. With 150 million males in America, we could put 25 armed people for every mile of our borders within 1-3 days. But we wouldn't have to guard our Northern border with Canada there. East and West borders are opened seas & suicide. That leaves your Southern border & the Mexico suicide Gulf. But try to dream up any military operation that could succeed against America. The "to the point where we can't defend ourselves" syndrome.

You realize almost all our troops are abroad right now & no one is even making a suggestion we would be invaded. Imagine all US troops home & the idea is Ludicrous!

Like what happened on 9-11 with the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? How about the shootings at Fort Hood? The point is, we are involved in skirmishes that doesn't have to be defined by a "nation" and it's borders. Our own nation's perimeters are constantly being invaded through the illegal crossings of foreigners looking for opportunities in the United States. It would not take much to have one terrorist group smuggle explosives, or biological weapons, in hopes of creating massive fear and devastation in our country. The terrorism that grips the UK and Spain can quite easily happen here, if we allow these terrorists groups the complete freedom to plan and train for a future attack. Sticking your head in the sand, in hopes that it all goes away, is not the solution to defending this country from further attacks.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not so sure I agree with this. The farmer isn't exactly holding a fist of money behind his back. I live in a farming community and these farmers are struggling. The majority of farmers can't get "shit" for their crops without being involved in Co-ops. On top of that, the Co-ops low-ball the farmers for what they'll pay for their crops, and then sell high at market. It's a typical scheme we see with other B.S. I'm married to the farmers daughter and I tell you that they aren't banking. They farm a few thousand acres of cotton, maiz, and this year will be farming corn. For the last 4 or 5 years they've ended up in the hole every year. The last two years they've had to file crop insurance which doesn't pay but maybe half of what your took the farm loan out for. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but it simply isn't what I've experienced.

They are being squeezed by big corporate farmers, and the co-ops. The question is, if you are losing money to the point that you are mortgaging the farm, it is time to go do something different. Many farmers are generational, and I understand their pain to lose it all. But that is the way it goes. We all take chances on investments, and sometimes when we shouldn't. Sometimes we should see the futility of continuing down a hole in the ground. But I really think it is unfair for Americans to pay for bad dreams. I oppose subsidies. I wouldn't oppose welfare for the farmer, and if the system is screwed up, change it.

I see the farmer as the small business who lost to Walmart.

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They are being squeezed by big corporate farmers, and the co-ops. The question is, if you are losing money to the point that you are mortgaging the farm, it is time to go do something different. Many farmers are generational, and I understand their pain to lose it all. But that is the way it goes. We all take chances on investments, and sometimes when we shouldn't. Sometimes we should see the futility of continuing down a hole in the ground. But I really think it is unfair for Americans to pay for bad dreams. I oppose subsidies. I wouldn't oppose welfare for the farmer, and if the system is screwed up, change it.

I see the farmer as the small business who lost to Walmart.

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

I don't think it's anybody's business one way or another what anybody has. Enough with the penis envy.

 

[Shoobis1]

In a Feb. 15, 2011, press conference, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that "over the last two years since President Barack Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke. It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."

. . .

I thought the idea was to increase the number of jobs as you come out of a recession not cut them.

Actually the number is 58,000 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but 200,000 sounds more dramatic.

The country is broke, we can't just keep spending money we don't have. That's a luxury we don't have. It would be suicide to keep increasing spending. We have to be responsible, even if it means slowing the recover a little.

Some people who think we should just keep spending money and going into debt just don't get it. That money has to come from somewhere. That labor has to come from somewhere. We can't just create it out of thin air because we want to.

 

[DiamondDave]

They are being squeezed by big corporate farmers, and the co-ops. The question is, if you are losing money to the point that you are mortgaging the farm, it is time to go do something different. Many farmers are generational, and I understand their pain to lose it all. But that is the way it goes. We all take chances on investments, and sometimes when we shouldn't. Sometimes we should see the futility of continuing down a hole in the ground. But I really think it is unfair for Americans to pay for bad dreams. I oppose subsidies. I wouldn't oppose welfare for the farmer, and if the system is screwed up, change it.

I see the farmer as the small business who lost to Walmart.

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

Except for selective 'equal treatment' by government... you know...

But ones like you fully support equal treatment when it benefits you, and don't mine unequal treatment when it benefits you

 

[uscitizen]

Why is it such a crazy notion for the government to not be allowed to spend more than what they're bringing in?

Perhaps part of the problem is they do not bring in enough?

I agree, but like any household, if you're not bringing "enough" in, then you don't overspend your means. If you do then you toil with financial failure.

Most households in America do overspend, that is part of our problem, but lots of GDP money from it.

 

[Flopper]

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

Except for selective 'equal treatment' by government... you know...

But ones like you fully support equal treatment when it benefits you, and don't mine unequal treatment when it benefits you

Of course. There is no such thing as a fair tax. The only good tax is tax I don't have to pay. I think most tax payers fee the same way.

 

[BrianH]

Perhaps part of the problem is they do not bring in enough?

I agree, but like any household, if you're not bringing "enough" in, then you don't overspend your means. If you do then you toil with financial failure.

Most households in America do overspend, that is part of our problem, but lots of GDP money from it.

And what happens when they overspend? They lose their house, their vehicles are repossessed, and their credit is ruined.

The U.S. has this policy where it spends money and has no timeline of when to pay it back. They spend indescriminately expecting future generations to pick up the tab.

 

[boedicca]

They are being squeezed by big corporate farmers, and the co-ops. The question is, if you are losing money to the point that you are mortgaging the farm, it is time to go do something different. Many farmers are generational, and I understand their pain to lose it all. But that is the way it goes. We all take chances on investments, and sometimes when we shouldn't. Sometimes we should see the futility of continuing down a hole in the ground. But I really think it is unfair for Americans to pay for bad dreams. I oppose subsidies. I wouldn't oppose welfare for the farmer, and if the system is screwed up, change it.

I see the farmer as the small business who lost to Walmart.

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

That is utter crap. Most estates that are above $5M consist of either family owned businesses or farms. The only way to deal with the taxes is to sell off all or part of the inheritance.

 

[Synthaholic]

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

That is utter crap. Most estates that are above $5M consist of either family owned businesses or farms. The only way to deal with the taxes is to sell off all or part of the inheritance.

That is utter crap. Wall Streeters and bankers aren't farmers and aren't in family owned businesses.

 

[Flopper]

So someone that works hard their entire lives should have everything taken away from them because they are rich enough? Tell you kids that, tell them its hopeless to work hard because the rich people deserve everything and you deserve nothing because you are taking up the rich's peoples air and as a republican I think we are less of a human because we are not rich.

Unbelievable. Here is a novel idea, why don't we let Americans decide what Americans want to do.

Really.

If your estate is worth less than $5,000,000, you pay no estate taxes. If your estate is worth more, get a good estate tax man and you'll pay a small fraction of the tax rate.

If your gross income is $1,000,000, you are married, take the average amount of deductions for that income, 60% of your income is from a salary or your business, 25% capital gains, and 15% dividends. You'll owe Uncle Same $168,500. That's 16.8% of your income. The average tax payers pays right at 17%. You pay no state income tax in 8 states. 15 states have very low state income taxes.

For those that are living off there investments, they can put all their investments in tax free municipal bonds and pay no income tax.

I really don't think those with 7 digit incomes have much to complain about.

That is utter crap. Most estates that are above $5M consist of either family owned businesses or farms. The only way to deal with the taxes is to sell off all or part of the inheritance.

There are a multitude of ways to reduce taxes on estates over the federal exemption, you just have to have the foresight to work with your tax attorney prior to death to setup the necessary trusts. Irrevocable trust will protect most farms and small businesses. Most of the family farms and businesses lost due to estate taxes are due to the owner not doing appropriate estate planning. Even businesses that are well over the exemption are able to protect most of the assets.

I am not a fan of estate taxes because there are too many loopholes and rates are too high. The super rich can usually get around most of the cost. I favor a much smaller tax without all the loopholes and trusts or just abolishing it altogether.