Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to massively cut government and to repeal job killing regulations.
If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.
Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.
In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.
How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?
Aren't you a libertarian Oddball? Why would you not want military might cut from the federal government? That would seem first and foremost wise in terms of fiscal responsibility, and in terms of federal government power.
Oddball is a Corporate stooge. He doesn't want Defense cut because there are way too many high $$ private contracts directly tied to military spending. His priorities aren't for smaller government, it's for bigger business.
How do you know his motivation? It is incredibly arrogant and intellectually dishonest to assume that you are capable of divining his motivation. Its entirely possible that he sees national defense as a legitimate function of the federal government. Furthermore it is entirely possible that he disagrees with you about the appropriate use of the military in the defense of the country.
Another partisan argument in which you don't like what he says so you attack him and his motive in an attempt to discredit his argument.
For the record, I'm in favor of cutting the military and I'm a Libertarian but it does nobody any good to discuss things if they do so with your approach.
Mike
Lying out your ass is a poor way to get a point across.Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to “massively cut” government and to repeal “job killing regulations.’’
If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.
Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.
In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.
How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?
There's no thinking. All of the money that pays the wages of the police and firemen and soldiers pays for real work that benefits our economy and our country. And that money doesn't disappear - as you noted - it's recycled into the private sector, where it creates jobs - and profits - at malls and restaurants and book stores.
The "eliminate government" crowd isn't motivated by a thought process - it's motivated by a desire not to pay their share.
Fair enough, I explained why cutting government means cutting employees which will increase the numbers of those on the UE Rolls. Explain where my reasoning is wrong.
Cutting spending with a corresponding tax cut takes money from an inefficient government and puts in into a much more efficient capitalistic economy, hence more jobs than gov't can provide with the same $ amount.
That's at best a theory. Not all business thrives and even those that do, do not necessarily benefit local or even our national economy. A government worker spending his earned income on food, shelter and durable goods stimulates our economy; a South Asian or Chinese Worker doesn't spend their income in small business America.
A contractor hiring American workers building and repairing our infrastructure keeps money moving by buying supplies, renting heavy equipment and making things which benefit commerce.
Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.
I got a crazy idea, how about we go by what Oddball says rather than making a crazy prediction based on mind-reading and hoping its right, sound good?
Deal. Hence why I made the statement that I made.
Facts is Oddball has a raging hard-on for big business and would support just about anything if it meant private business could make a buck off of it. He's made that crystal clear in multiple threads on this site.
Ok great, then please provide a link to a quote from Oddball where you found that he doesn't want to cut defense because he loves high $$ private contracts.
If you can find that, I'll understand the crazy allegation about him.
Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.
Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to massively cut government and to repeal job killing regulations.
If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.
Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.
In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.
How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?
What they need to do is dismantle NASA, all scientific agencies, all National Parks, stop using the Army engineering in civilian endeavors like dikes along the Mississippi...
What they need to do is dismantle NASA, all scientific agencies, all National Parks, stop using the Army engineering in civilian endeavors like dikes along the Mississippi...
Lying out your ass is a poor way to get a point across.Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to massively cut government and to repeal job killing regulations.
If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.
Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.
In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.
How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?
There's no thinking. All of the money that pays the wages of the police and firemen and soldiers pays for real work that benefits our economy and our country. And that money doesn't disappear - as you noted - it's recycled into the private sector, where it creates jobs - and profits - at malls and restaurants and book stores.
The "eliminate government" crowd isn't motivated by a thought process - it's motivated by a desire not to pay their share.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of ways to cut and eliminate wasteful spending, needles bureaucracy and outright fraud that don't entail cowering behind police, firemen (which are local not federal services) and military personnel for a lawful national defense, to try and make a point.
But your intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery is duly noted.
Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.
Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.
Can the private sector protect our country? No. That's why we have a Defense Department.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No. Um...Hate to break it to you...Private contractors do just that, day in and day out.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No. Never heard of Medigap insurance, have you?
Can it educate ALL our children? No. All of the chilluns aren't getting educated right now, despite jillions of gubmint buckaroos and big bureaucracies being thrown at it.
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No. Little known fact...#1 polluter in America: Department of Defense. The Pentagon Is America's Biggest Polluter | Personal Health | AlterNet...Looks like Big Daddy Big Gubmint can't even clean up his own back yard.
What really doesn't "do it" are strawmen, platitudes and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc arguments.The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.
RDD_1210 said:Oddball is a Corporate stooge. He doesn't want Defense cut because there are way too many high $$ private contracts directly tied to military spending. His priorities aren't for smaller government, it's for bigger business.
I know his motivation because of what he writes. Nothing more. If he didn't constantly defend big business at all costs, even when it contradicts his faux desires to reduce the deficit I wouldn't call him out for being the hypocrite and corporate stooge that he is.
[/qoute]
I'm glad you're in favor of cutting the military budget. That's something we can agree onHa, he has over 25,000 posts. I'm not even going to attempt to find something like that right now. I'm sure you or someone else will call that a copout and some sort of admission of defeat. Fine. But that's way to much effort for something I couldn't care less about proving. I'll tell you what though. Every time I see Oddball make a post defending the interests of his corporate overlords I'll be sure to send you a PM about it. Deal?
See here's the problem. You are drawing a conclusion from his posts that you can't really draw. He can defend the interests of corporations, without them being his overlords mind you, for a bunch of reasons. They may actually be tied to a belief that we actually need the military doing what it does.
I think you find it easier to attack his person than his policies because you cannot deal with the idea that somebody actually believes something different from you. I mean you define the criteria of serving overlords with such a broad brush that there is no way you have any foundation for it or you would be able to cite an example and I find it impossible to believe, based on what you write, that you can debate the facts.
See what I did there? I can infer, correctly or incorrectly, all kinds of things from what you say. If I am inferring things about your argument and I make an incorrect assumption then there is a process of clarification that can occur. When however, I make an assumption about your character based on a few hundred words at a time that you write, what is the potential for intellectual discorce? There is none.
For the record, I happen to agree with him. I will defend large business at every turn. I'm not a slave to big business, I just don't view them as inherently evil. I'm for nothing other than the market influences. I want the government out of the way and to stop trying to pick winners and losers, let the market do it. I'm not for big business specifically, I'm for any individual or group of individuals succeeding in the free market. I am also for the smallest government possible. I disagree with oddball on military spending, to be sure, but I don't need to attack his character or call him a hypocrite to do so. There is such a thing as prioritizing. He's pretty clear, from what I've read, that he wants to have a strong defense and that it is Constitutionally authorized. We disagree on the ammount of defense that is necessary and we can discuss it but I don't need to tie his point of disagreement to a bunch of buzz words and hyperboles.
Just trying to clear the air.
Mike
No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.Lying out your ass is a poor way to get a point across.There's no thinking. All of the money that pays the wages of the police and firemen and soldiers pays for real work that benefits our economy and our country. And that money doesn't disappear - as you noted - it's recycled into the private sector, where it creates jobs - and profits - at malls and restaurants and book stores.
The "eliminate government" crowd isn't motivated by a thought process - it's motivated by a desire not to pay their share.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of ways to cut and eliminate wasteful spending, needles bureaucracy and outright fraud that don't entail cowering behind police, firemen (which are local not federal services) and military personnel for a lawful national defense, to try and make a point.
But your intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery is duly noted.
You're hyberbole is noted. Post fifty ways to cut waste. I'll help. Fine contractors who don't meet timelines or fail to complete other work within the terms of the contract; and, deny them future gov't contracts. Forty-nine to go, odd-dude.
No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.Lying out your ass is a poor way to get a point across.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of ways to cut and eliminate wasteful spending, needles bureaucracy and outright fraud that don't entail cowering behind police, firemen (which are local not federal services) and military personnel for a lawful national defense, to try and make a point.
But your intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery is duly noted.
You're hyberbole is noted. Post fifty ways to cut waste. I'll help. Fine contractors who don't meet timelines or fail to complete other work within the terms of the contract; and, deny them future gov't contracts. Forty-nine to go, odd-dude.
And while you're busy dreaming up piddly new rules and regulations to pile on contractors that amount to pennies, I'll be over here eliminating entire bureaucracies that burn through billions of dollars.
Which approach do you figure has a better chance at eliminating waste, fraud, duplications of services and outright graft?
Either that or you start treating people like adults and tell them "NO" for a change.No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.You're hyberbole is noted. Post fifty ways to cut waste. I'll help. Fine contractors who don't meet timelines or fail to complete other work within the terms of the contract; and, deny them future gov't contracts. Forty-nine to go, odd-dude.
And while you're busy dreaming up piddly new rules and regulations to pile on contractors that amount to pennies, I'll be over here eliminating entire bureaucracies that burn through billions of dollars.
Which approach do you figure has a better chance at eliminating waste, fraud, duplications of services and outright graft?
Here's the problem with your excersice oddball. It won't work. While you're busy coming up with your list of bureaucracies, 50 people are busy coming up with their list of untouchables. Their list will all include one of your list to cut. In the end you will all put all of the programs on a list to be cut and a list to not be cut while the debt grows.
The only possible solution is to cut all programs by 30% immediately. Tomorrow they all get an email saying they need to do the same ammount with 30% less money, if they can't they will be disbanded and we will pass their function to the state if the state deems it a necessary proposal.
Mike
How many tax payers does it take to pay one public employee's salary and benifits?
10?
20?
30?
I would bet it is closer to 50.
Wouldn't it be better to spend that money elsewhere?
No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.Lying out your ass is a poor way to get a point across.
There are hundreds upon hundreds of ways to cut and eliminate wasteful spending, needles bureaucracy and outright fraud that don't entail cowering behind police, firemen (which are local not federal services) and military personnel for a lawful national defense, to try and make a point.
But your intellectual dishonesty and demagoguery is duly noted.
You're hyberbole is noted. Post fifty ways to cut waste. I'll help. Fine contractors who don't meet timelines or fail to complete other work within the terms of the contract; and, deny them future gov't contracts. Forty-nine to go, odd-dude.
And while you're busy dreaming up piddly new rules and regulations to pile on contractors that amount to pennies, I'll be over here eliminating entire bureaucracies that burn through billions of dollars.
Which approach do you figure has a better chance at eliminating waste, fraud, duplication of services and outright graft?
Either that or you start treating people like adults and tell them "NO" for a change.No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.
And while you're busy dreaming up piddly new rules and regulations to pile on contractors that amount to pennies, I'll be over here eliminating entire bureaucracies that burn through billions of dollars.
Which approach do you figure has a better chance at eliminating waste, fraud, duplications of services and outright graft?
Here's the problem with your excersice oddball. It won't work. While you're busy coming up with your list of bureaucracies, 50 people are busy coming up with their list of untouchables. Their list will all include one of your list to cut. In the end you will all put all of the programs on a list to be cut and a list to not be cut while the debt grows.
The only possible solution is to cut all programs by 30% immediately. Tomorrow they all get an email saying they need to do the same ammount with 30% less money, if they can't they will be disbanded and we will pass their function to the state if the state deems it a necessary proposal.
Mike
CPB/PBS/NPR don't need budget reductions, they need to be eliminated.
NEA doesn't need budget reductions, it needs to be eliminated.
The DEA, ONDCP & the insane "war" on (some) drugs don't need budget reductions, they need to be eliminated.
Military bases where the wars have been over for more than half a century don't need budget reductions, they need to be eliminated.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.
Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.
Can the private sector protect our country? No. That's why we have a Defense Department.. The Defense Dept. Is part of government.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No. Um...Hate to break it to you... contractors do just that, day in and day out.. The do it because the govern mention pays them to do it.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No. Never heard of Medigap insurance, have you?. No. Does it cover all the medical expenses of all elderly people? Or only a small fraction for a small fraction of the elderly?
Can it educate ALL our children? No. All of the chilluns aren't getting educated right now, despite jillions of gubmint buckaroos and big bureaucracies being thrown at it.. What percent of American children are not getting an education, according to you? What percent would it be if we abolished public schools?
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No. Little known fact...#1 polluter in America: Department of Defense. The Pentagon Is America's Biggest Polluter | Personal Health | AlterNet...Looks like Big Daddy Big Gubmint can't even clean up his own back yard. So if the military pollutes... then what? What is your point exactly?
What really doesn't "do it" are strawmen, platitudes and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc arguments.The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.
