US Government 2011

[sparky]

63% miltary/security

and they can't win a war, or protect main street America

~S~

 

[Neubarth]

We need to impeach Obama before the Right Wing extremists try some other means of removal. It is all about saving this country from violent civil war.

I have warned you. Here it comes. Are you ready?

 

[Neubarth]

It is difficult to believe that there are so many stupid people in this world.

 

[alizabeth]

I am a college student and I recently found out that my dad's company will be going out of business due to the DoD procurement insourcing directive. I was wondering if anyone knows how to estimate how many minority owned and small businesses will go out of business as a result of the new procurement DoD insourcing directive?

 

[Foxfyre]

You would be more believable alizabeth if you weren't posting the exact same question on all the political forums.

Why not start a thread with your question and see if there is any interest?

 

[alizabeth]

It is the truth and I have offical documentation to prove it if you would like to see it. Yes, i am posting on different places but that is only because no one wants to talk about this very important subject. There are so many people out there losing their jobs because of the government when the government is trying to say that they are creating more jobs. (they are creating more but in a way that will be of no benefit to the people outside of the government)

Whether you believe me or not, it doesn't matter to me because I know I am speaking the truth. I don't say stuff unless I know what I know I can prove my statements.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is the truth and I have offical documentation to prove it if you would like to see it. Yes, i am posting on different places but that is only because no one wants to talk about this very important subject. There are so many people out there losing their jobs because of the government when the government is trying to say that they are creating more jobs. (they are creating more but in a way that will be of no benefit to the people outside of the government)

Whether you believe me or not, it doesn't matter to me because I know I am speaking the truth. I don't say stuff unless I know what I know I can prove my statements.

Then again, why not start a thread on it. Provide a bit of information about what it is, add a link so folks can get more info if they want it, and see if you can't generate a discussion. When it isn't on people's radar screen, you have to tweak their interest a bit.

 

[alizabeth]

Thanks for your help. Just to let you know....I have been researching this insourcing plan ever since I heard about it. If you are interested, I have some official documentation that I can email you. In general, the goal of the policy is to take 30,000 jobs of the private sector (mostly small businesses) and turn them into government employment. Many small and minority business jobs have already gone away.

This year alone, the government has brought in 7,000 private sector jobs and they are pushing on full speed ahead with the plan to insource 30,000 more jobs the remainder of this year and next.

The government has changed the terms: Originally, the rules were that the private sector could not be inherently governmental jobs, now the private sector cannot do anything termed as “crucial.” We just got a semi definite definition of what inherently governmental is. There is NOTHING to define what crucial is. All in all, it appears that the government is trying to rid itself of what makes the economy survive, small businesses and private sector contractors.

The directive also says that is it is in place to save the government money. Really they are spending more money to insource these jobs than they would be to just leave them alone. If you think about it, with small businesses out there, you have more people paying taxes. When you take the small businesses away, you have less people paying taxes, which means less money being brought into the government and how do they normally “fix” that problem: raise the taxes for everyone else.

All in all, when it is first presented, it may tickle the ear and sound good, but when you get down to the heart of the subject, it is causing more hurt and problems.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for your help. Just to let you know....I have been researching this insourcing plan ever since I heard about it. If you are interested, I have some official documentation that I can email you. In general, the goal of the policy is to take 30,000 jobs of the private sector (mostly small businesses) and turn them into government employment. Many small and minority business jobs have already gone away.

This year alone, the government has brought in 7,000 private sector jobs and they are pushing on full speed ahead with the plan to insource 30,000 more jobs the remainder of this year and next.

The government has changed the terms: Originally, the rules were that the private sector could not be inherently governmental jobs, now the private sector cannot do anything termed as “crucial.” We just got a semi definite definition of what inherently governmental is. There is NOTHING to define what crucial is. All in all, it appears that the government is trying to rid itself of what makes the economy survive, small businesses and private sector contractors.

The directive also says that is it is in place to save the government money. Really they are spending more money to insource these jobs than they would be to just leave them alone. If you think about it, with small businesses out there, you have more people paying taxes. When you take the small businesses away, you have less people paying taxes, which means less money being brought into the government and how do they normally “fix” that problem: raise the taxes for everyone else.

All in all, when it is first presented, it may tickle the ear and sound good, but when you get down to the heart of the subject, it is causing more hurt and problems.

I'm well aware of it already and please don't email me any more stuff. I already have so many subscriptions to information sources and have so many friends sending me stuff I don't have time to read it all now.

But if you are that knowledgeable and can make the subject interesting--keep your thesis as short as possible in the opening post--you probably could generate a discussion and would be able to educate some folks who don't have this on their radar yet.

Hint: It isn't just minorities who are getting hurt by this stuff though. Try not to make it a 'minority' thing though certainly that should be a component of it.

 

[alizabeth]

Thank you very much for your input. And yes I know it's not a minority thing only. That is why it says minority owned and small businesses. thank you for your time.

 

[midcan5]

Why is this negative hokum bookmarked? If you want to keep it on top add a 'Whiner's' Thread topic, that would give all those with nothing positive to say about our great nation a place to whine together. BooHoo.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why are you taking it negatively. It is just a pictorial display of the budget. Is it so obvious that the system is fucked up that even you as a radical leftist can see that something is wrong?

 

[Oddball]

The facts are only "negative" to committed Fabian socialists like midcan't, because it shows one and all what the bloat of his beloved socialistic nanny state really entails.

 

[eagleseven]

Why is this negative hokum bookmarked? If you want to keep it on top add a 'Whiner's' Thread topic, that would give all those with nothing positive to say about our great nation a place to whine together. BooHoo.

If a simple statement of our budget depresses you, then perhaps you should do something about it come November?

 

[Dr.House]

Why is this negative hokum bookmarked? If you want to keep it on top add a 'Whiner's' Thread topic, that would give all those with nothing positive to say about our great nation a place to whine together. BooHoo.

Stop whining, dumbass...

 

[SofiaY]

the government is having hard time to retain the economic stability

 

[bripat9643]

That's the point - The piddlin crap you guys usually recommend cutting usually amount to a cumshot in the ocean compared to "Defense" spending.

I recommend cutting Social Security and Medicare, plus eliminating almost every non defense department.

 

[uscitizen]

That's the point - The piddlin crap you guys usually recommend cutting usually amount to a cumshot in the ocean compared to "Defense" spending.

I recommend cutting Social Security and Medicare, plus eliminating almost every non defense department.

so you want a purely military based govt like Libya has had for 40 years?

 

[Cuyo]

That's the point - The piddlin crap you guys usually recommend cutting usually amount to a cumshot in the ocean compared to "Defense" spending.

I recommend cutting Social Security and Medicare, plus eliminating almost every non defense department.

Uhh-huh.

When you cut Social Security and Medicare, are you going to keep the corresponding taxes?

Cuz if not, you actually increase the deficit....

 

[Foxfyre]

That's the point - The piddlin crap you guys usually recommend cutting usually amount to a cumshot in the ocean compared to "Defense" spending.

I recommend cutting Social Security and Medicare, plus eliminating almost every non defense department.

You cannot 'cut' Social Security and Medicare without hurting the people the government has made dependent on these programs. But you can reform them by beginning now to slowly and incrementally privatize them just as they have slowly and incrementally grown to the unsustainable burdens that they are. And they should be gradually and carefully transferred to the states to manage so as not to break faith with those already entrapped within them while ensuring that future generations will not be saddled with a permanent and ever growing economic albatross around their necks.

Defense being a Constitutional mandate for the Federal government must of necessity remain with the Federal government, but we should demand that our fearless leaders treat our money with the same respect that they treat their own. Using defense contracts as payoffs for cronies and contributors must become a thing of the past. You can't tell me there aren't people within the best military the world has ever known who can't figure out how to streamline purchasing and allocations in the most economical manner without compromising efficiency and effectiveness.

One example: I think it was back in the 70s or 80s, the military decided that government issue soda crackers weren't really any different than commercial soda crackers and started buying the soda crackers that civilians buy instead of having them specially made. The savings was something like $100,000!! You wouldn't need a whole lot of savings like that to add up to real money.