No. I could not. I understand the rule prompting this maneuver, but it is a waste of time and money. The potus all ready made it clear that he doesn't give a damn what the legislature thinks or does.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
So, there are 'grave consequences for the world economy', if the US government doesn't sort out a debt limit and budget, eh?
And the career politicians pull a grade-school fuck-off stunt like that, eh?
Then go on a long weekend vacation to boot?
Typical...
And the career politicians pull a grade-school fuck-off stunt like that, eh?
Then go on a long weekend vacation to boot?
Typical...
Hate the game not the player.
The Republicans, who control the House and now have greater control of the Senate, have now decided -- having tripled the debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled it since I left -- that it's all of a sudden the biggest problem in the world" - Bill Clintonrdx-fx wrote:
So, there are 'grave consequences for the world economy', if the US government doesn't sort out a debt limit and budget, eh?
Seriously cut spending AND raise taxes. It's not fucking difficult. Cutting spending should not include things like the job killing EPA". And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
Yea. Cutting NASA was a much better idea.... Truth be told the EPA budget ballooned over 34% since the bamster grabbed the reins.AussieReaper wrote:
The Republicans, who control the House and now have greater control of the Senate, have now decided -- having tripled the debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled it since I left -- that it's all of a sudden the biggest problem in the world" - Bill Clintonrdx-fx wrote:
So, there are 'grave consequences for the world economy', if the US government doesn't sort out a debt limit and budget, eh?
Seriously cut spending AND raise taxes. It's not fucking difficult. Cutting spending should not include things like the job killing EPA". And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Discretionary, non-defense spending up 24% under Obama and a Dem-controlled Congress. Deficits quadrupled. Yep...it's only the Republicans who just gained a majority in January...THEIR fault.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Sometimes I think both sides of politics simultaneously screw our respective countries over, regardless of whom is in government.
Do you think maybe cutting the budget spent in Iraq/Afghanistan might be a good idea?13rin wrote:
Yea. Cutting NASA was a much better idea.... Truth be told the EPA budget ballooned over 34% since the bamster grabbed the reins.AussieReaper wrote:
The Republicans, who control the House and now have greater control of the Senate, have now decided -- having tripled the debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled it since I left -- that it's all of a sudden the biggest problem in the world" - Bill Clintonrdx-fx wrote:
So, there are 'grave consequences for the world economy', if the US government doesn't sort out a debt limit and budget, eh?
Seriously cut spending AND raise taxes. It's not fucking difficult. Cutting spending should not include things like the job killing EPA". And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
Since that's where you're spending the most...
Actually, where we're spending the most is Social Security and Medicare.AussieReaper wrote:
Do you think maybe cutting the budget spent in Iraq/Afghanistan might be a good idea?13rin wrote:
Yea. Cutting NASA was a much better idea.... Truth be told the EPA budget ballooned over 34% since the bamster grabbed the reins.AussieReaper wrote:
The Republicans, who control the House and now have greater control of the Senate, have now decided -- having tripled the debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled it since I left -- that it's all of a sudden the biggest problem in the world" - Bill Clinton
Seriously cut spending AND raise taxes. It's not fucking difficult. Cutting spending should not include things like the job killing EPA". And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
Since that's where you're spending the most...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Discretionary spending =/= mandatory spending.FEOS wrote:
Actually, where we're spending the most is Social Security and Medicare.AussieReaper wrote:
Do you think maybe cutting the budget spent in Iraq/Afghanistan might be a good idea?13rin wrote:
Yea. Cutting NASA was a much better idea.... Truth be told the EPA budget ballooned over 34% since the bamster grabbed the reins.
Since that's where you're spending the most...
spending = spending
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think its funny that we call it a debt limit. what's the point when we raise it every time we approach it?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Funny in a tragic way.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Like a clown on fire.Kmar wrote:
Funny in a tragic way.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Or a midget trapped in a trunk.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
To continue to refer to the tax structure as "tax cuts to millionaires" when those "millionaires" had to pay a higher share of the tax burden under those "tax cuts" is very flawed.AussieReaper wrote:
And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs.FEOS wrote:
To continue to refer to the tax structure as "tax cuts to millionaires" when those "millionaires" had to pay a higher share of the tax burden under those "tax cuts" is very flawed.AussieReaper wrote:
And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
http://i.imgur.com/AlWsL.gif
"Congressional Budget Office-The Budget and Economic Outlook-August 2010" (PDF)
Thinking that cutting taxes will not increase debt is what is flawed. Supply side economics doesn't work when taxes were so low to begin with, look at the US interest rates even. You can't cut what isn't there.
Says the guy on the govt payroll.FEOS wrote:
spending = spending
Here's a thought experiment for you:
Try thinking through the consequences if you resigned your job tomorrow 'on principle'
Work out how to explain to your colleagues that they need to take a pay cut
Pick which of your colleagues should be fired so spending can be cut
Its easy to say glibly 'spending=bad', cutting spending has consequences.
Fuck Israel
I already have to figure out which of my colleagues have to be fired...it's called a "reduction in force."Dilbert_X wrote:
Says the guy on the govt payroll.FEOS wrote:
spending = spending
Here's a thought experiment for you:
Try thinking through the consequences if you resigned your job tomorrow 'on principle'
Work out how to explain to your colleagues that they need to take a pay cut
Pick which of your colleagues should be fired so spending can be cut
Its easy to say glibly 'spending=bad', cutting spending has consequences.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So who are you going to pick and why?FEOS wrote:
I already have to figure out which of my colleagues have to be fired...it's called a "reduction in force."Dilbert_X wrote:
Says the guy on the govt payroll.FEOS wrote:
spending = spending
Here's a thought experiment for you:
Try thinking through the consequences if you resigned your job tomorrow 'on principle'
Work out how to explain to your colleagues that they need to take a pay cut
Pick which of your colleagues should be fired so spending can be cut
Its easy to say glibly 'spending=bad', cutting spending has consequences.
Look at the graph, brainiac. That's because the government is giving money to 40% of the tax base instead of collecting taxes from them. The problem with the "tax cuts for the wealthy" isn't that the rich aren't paying enough taxes. It's that the bottom 40% of wage earners are actually getting money from the government they haven't paid in. So the largest sector, population wise, gets money...while the smallest sector has to pay more, then is told they aren't paying enough.AussieReaper wrote:
In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs.FEOS wrote:
To continue to refer to the tax structure as "tax cuts to millionaires" when those "millionaires" had to pay a higher share of the tax burden under those "tax cuts" is very flawed.AussieReaper wrote:
And continuing the Bush tax cuts to millionaires is very flawed.
http://i.imgur.com/AlWsL.gif
"Congressional Budget Office-The Budget and Economic Outlook-August 2010" (PDF)
Thinking that cutting taxes will not increase debt is what is flawed. Supply side economics doesn't work when taxes were so low to begin with, look at the US interest rates even. You can't cut what isn't there.
It's utter nonsense.
You say supply side economics doesn't work. I think the "stimulus" strategy has proven that Keynesian economics doesn't work. But the economy took off after the tax cuts in 2003. That's weird. Almost like that supply side approach actually did work...but I'm sure you'll just chalk it up to coincidence that that strategy worked when it did and the Keynesian strategy failed when it did, right?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
While I agree with this wholeheartedly I just want to point out how that cutting taxes won't fix the U.S. economy and a rubber banding tax rate doesn't help provide economic stability. Playing with your tax rates every few years causes a lot of headaches.Look at the graph, brainiac. That's because the government is giving money to 40% of the tax base instead of collecting taxes from them. The problem with the "tax cuts for the wealthy" isn't that the rich aren't paying enough taxes. It's that the bottom 40% of wage earners are actually getting money from the government they haven't paid in. So the largest sector, population wise, gets money...while the smallest sector has to pay more, then is told they aren't paying enough.
It's utter nonsense.
As for the stimulus- I would have preferred if it was billed as a "National Investment in the Future" or something similar rather than a stimulus 'going to save the day' bill. Of course I would have also liked if it had actually provided infrastructure and invested n the future more than just try to get people back to work...
It's not just "cutting taxes." That oversimplifies it. It's really restructuring the tax system so that you increase the tax base, spreading the tax burden out across a larger swath of the wage-earning public. By doing that, you can lower the average tax rate across the board (the "tax cut") while still increasing overall receipts. Additionally, you increase the fairness of the system.Macbeth wrote:
While I agree with this wholeheartedly I just want to point out how that cutting taxes won't fix the U.S. economy and a rubber banding tax rate doesn't help provide economic stability. Playing with your tax rates every few years causes a lot of headaches.Look at the graph, brainiac. That's because the government is giving money to 40% of the tax base instead of collecting taxes from them. The problem with the "tax cuts for the wealthy" isn't that the rich aren't paying enough taxes. It's that the bottom 40% of wage earners are actually getting money from the government they haven't paid in. So the largest sector, population wise, gets money...while the smallest sector has to pay more, then is told they aren't paying enough.
It's utter nonsense.
As for the stimulus- I would have preferred if it was billed as a "National Investment in the Future" or something similar rather than a stimulus 'going to save the day' bill. Of course I would have also liked if it had actually provided infrastructure and invested n the future more than just try to get people back to work...
As to your other question: We essentially do the same thing we do with promotions, but instead of choosing to promote, we're choosing to retain in service. The percentages are different, obviously, and they are offering voluntary severance packages to people to leave, as well. I've seen one guy get booted in the last round (a Major) and we've got 5 officers who are vulnerable in this round (1 Major-no worries; 2 Captains-no worries; 2 Captains-50/50 odds).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I know, I understand. I'm just referring to the myopia of some people who think that a tax cut will save the world. The really dense crowd. The ones that post in the comment sections of drudge linked articles and hotair. The "tax the rich" crowd of the right.FEOS wrote:
It's not just "cutting taxes." That oversimplifies it. It's really restructuring the tax system so that you increase the tax base, spreading the tax burden out across a larger swath of the wage-earning public. By doing that, you can lower the average tax rate across the board (the "tax cut") while still increasing overall receipts. Additionally, you increase the fairness of the system.Macbeth wrote:
While I agree with this wholeheartedly I just want to point out how that cutting taxes won't fix the U.S. economy and a rubber banding tax rate doesn't help provide economic stability. Playing with your tax rates every few years causes a lot of headaches.Look at the graph, brainiac. That's because the government is giving money to 40% of the tax base instead of collecting taxes from them. The problem with the "tax cuts for the wealthy" isn't that the rich aren't paying enough taxes. It's that the bottom 40% of wage earners are actually getting money from the government they haven't paid in. So the largest sector, population wise, gets money...while the smallest sector has to pay more, then is told they aren't paying enough.
It's utter nonsense.
As for the stimulus- I would have preferred if it was billed as a "National Investment in the Future" or something similar rather than a stimulus 'going to save the day' bill. Of course I would have also liked if it had actually provided infrastructure and invested n the future more than just try to get people back to work...
As to your other question: We essentially do the same thing we do with promotions, but instead of choosing to promote, we're choosing to retain in service. The percentages are different, obviously, and they are offering voluntary severance packages to people to leave, as well. I've seen one guy get booted in the last round (a Major) and we've got 5 officers who are vulnerable in this round (1 Major-no worries; 2 Captains-no worries; 2 Captains-50/50 odds).