Shared publicly  - 
 
A new week of #fiscalcliff  talks began with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner challenging the GOP to improve on his offer.  How do you think this will play out?
9
2
Jay Carlson's profile photoJohn Keefe's profile photoC.M. Deosdade's profile photoKenneth R. Hoefle's profile photo
124 comments
 
I think we are already over the cliff, it is only a matter how we land in the bottom and it won't be good.
 
+Travis Augustine
Which goes to show how incredibly intellectually bankrupt Republicans are. Obama puts a plan on the table and the Republicans counter with.......nothing.
Same old song and dance from the obstructionist Republicans of the 112th. There is little doubt that the 113th will be much of the same
 
4 more years ..Same President ..Same House ..Same Senate... KEEP THE CHANGE!
 
May you tell me +Matthew Agnich what is Obama's plan. Taxing the rich won't cut it, he has to have a plan how to fix the entitlements which is bankrupting this country. The rich does not care because they can always pack up their large bags and leave, just what they they did to England when that country slap them with a 50% tax hikes. The country lost a lot of revenue instead of making a revenue from the rich. America wake up, this is not the right path, at least the Republican is there to block the Obama dictatorship, this is my humble opinion.
 
It has nothing to do with a living wage.  Lots of people complain about not receiving a living wage, and its a bogus complaint.  I had my own apartment and paid for all my food and utilities without any help from family or government, and I was making just above minimum wage.  Its called LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS!  
 
+Alexa Antonaras Do your research and don't make ignorant comments.  Federal minimum wage was $7.25 only 3 years ago, not the 1970s.  Most states have a higher minimum wage.
 
hope for the best and prepare for the worst... just in case things go over that cliff, make sure that your carabiner is hooked to the right harness
 
Mr Wallis got a list of where to move[if I can sell my old house]?
 
Low COL states are great,if you make High COL state wages.
 
I didn't do that decades ago. I'm only 26. This was 6 years ago. I didn't have cable or high speed internet. I didn't eat fancy meals or buy expensive cuts of meat. I didn't have leather furniture or lived liked a king. I worked a mile down the road. If I was cold, I didn't turn on the heat, I put on another layer. And you know what, I was even able to put away a little money into savings. How? By working as much and as hard as I could.
 
+Mike Mac not for long. Have you heard the word sequestration. Guess what those people are going to be part of the entitlement program. See the problem of this country we have a spending problem with no money to spend. 
 
+Benedict Joyce   yes, if it happens, if it does not, then defense still needs slashed by at least 1/3 1/2 the vacated positions in government need replaced with a work-for-welfare recipient, and the other half eliminated.

Tax rates on the upper earners need restored and their entitlement eliminated as well.

Yes, we have a spending problem, and have since Reagan, it went crazy the last 12 years and is now out of control.
 
No tax raises are needed.  They don't solve any problems and won't contribute anything meaningful.  Get rid of most entitlement programs which uses up the most money.
 
+Spencer Scott   Defense is our greatest spending, what data are you looking at ?
 
+Alexa Antonaras  yes, the 90's were much better then today, it was pretty decent until right after the Bush Tax cuts in 2002, then it all started to go downhill, corporations were able to keep their profits without working for tax breaks.  From 2002-2009 there was about a -9% decline in growth. 

Now they have record profits, record cash reserves and record low taxes, they are not creating new jobs through growth, and they are expecting continued and further tax breaks.....

Tax them federally and they are forced to seek local incentives to offset their overall tax burden, expand to produce to make up for the shortfall in profits that their investors demand.  Right now, they really do not have to work for it, the government hands it to them under their own personal entitlement plan.
 
Entitlements/social are the biggest costs of the federal budget.
 
A piece of every dollar I make go's to Social Security and Medicare which is labeled as such. The money that go's to the Defense Department has no such label. Every week we have spent another 2.5 billion dollars in Afghanistan 800 million of which is borrowed. And thanks to those two unfunded and pointless excursions we have over 40,000 Americans who have been killed or permanently disabled which we will continue to financially support for many years to come. People like +Spencer Scott simply quote the misinformation provided them by their party and the talking heads at Faux and by people like Beck and Limbaugh. Facts are irrelevant. Our entitlement programs are fully funded and have never added a cent to the national debt and have in fact been raided by both the Johnson and Bush administrations to help cover some of the shortfall caused by these pointless and unfunded military actions. 
 
+Spencer Scott  last year, social programs were far far less then  Defense spending.....  Years before, even a greater spread, defense spending eclipses social spending.

If you are saying social security is an entitlement, then you need to go back and understand how it works, it is earned, funded and paid into.
 
Defense spending is around 20% of federal spending.  Entitlement, social, healthcare programs are near 60%.  Just wait until Obamacare really kicks in.
 
+Spencer Scott   not sure where you are getting 20% from, also a good portion of the pensions and healthcare costs are for military retirees, technically that is part of defense spending, and government pensions/healthcare are not negotiable..  that leaves direct defense spending as the single greatest controllable expense
 
Why is every one so mad .. He gave us a phone . He gonna do more lol!
 
LOL +Raptor Dalan  thats funny, the really funny part is most people do not realize it was Reagan that gave the free phones, and they do not come from Federal tax $ anyway.
 
+Alexa Antonaras 

they probably blocked you, which makes everything they post invisible to the blocked user. I see a lot of liberals pull this play.
 
+Travis Augustine 

if you can't win an argument just admit defeat, blocking the user, making it impossible for them to counter, is nothing more then a bitch move.
 
+Travis Augustine 

stating opinions, with lack of ACTUAL FACTS does not win an argument. Take for instance Liberals on how to fix an economy. They swear that socialist policies are the key to a better future for every country, and yet; Every country that employs socialist policies, essentially bankrupts itself.

Cuba, Soviet Russia, Greece, etc.

Unrestricted Competitive Capitalism is the only economic system that works. But try telling that to a Liberal who wants to regulate the juice out of a company's testicals, accomplishing nothing more then increasing production cost, which in turn is passed onto the consumer.

How can a government, any government especially our own; believe they can fix the economy, when they can't even resolve their own problems first.
 
yea....  we just seen over the last 10-12 years what unchecked uncontrolled capitalism does to an economy, huge chunks of our countries wealth have been horded by big corporations and they are holding the cash reserves, failing to re-invest in America, not creating jobs but expecting us all to be good little consumers and buy their cheap stupid shit..

The theory you describe sounds good on paper, but the actual acid test proved the theory could not have been much more wrong.  And now we have the same people that supported this "experiment" being critical of "liberals" because they can not clean up all mess fast enough to suit them.....

Then many thought that tossing out a huge chunk of cash to the middle class would help, they spent it "stimulating" the economy, and corporations took that cash too and buried it in jars.

And here we are,  the defenders of this historical failure clearly defeated in the general election, and they still think they have the influence they thought they had before..... and they continue to blame their problems on "liberals" and "communists", its pretty astounding actually...
 
+Dave Tunc  wealth does not come from a test tube or a petri dish, it comes from moving existing money from others that have it into the control of a organization  or individual.  If it was simply created, the lower classes would still have the levels of wealth they had..
 
+Mike Mac 

regurgitating the "The Communist Manifesto" completely invalidates any argument you have against capitalism, seeing as how soviet era Russia implemented those policies in it's entirety and was subsequently bankrupted for it.

I believe I made that point already.
 
+Dave Tunc   Not really, I am a middle manager in a fortune 500 company, have worked in middle management in several companies and owned/operated multiple companies, two at the moment.  I am pretty sure I understand where money (what you call wealth)  comes from, I do not need someone to tell me some fairy tale to make me feel better about how screwed up reality really is.

You should try to stop issuing underhanded insults too, it makes you appear like a dickhead.
 
+Zander Gavin so you are saying that the failure of the USA over the last 12+ years is similar to the failures in Russia? and that my accurate summary of it reflects excerpts from "The Communist Manifesto" ?

Interesting angle you have there, comparing our failed Right Wing experiment to communism....
 
+Mike Mac 

let us examine that claim. the economy didn't start to tank until the last two years of Bush's presidency during which the House and Senate where dominated by the liberal reign of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Who together instituted massive regulations on businesses that drove gas up to $4 a gallon. and the Economy continued to be in the tank during the entire time that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama had the free reign to pass whatever they wanted.

it wasn't until the Republican's took back the House, that many of these nonsensical regulations where removed, thus allowing the economy to slowly heal. Obama has had nothing to do with it. His policies are what cause the national debt to rise more in 4 years then it did in 8 years under Bush.

your argument as always is invalid Mike.
 
"Unchecked" (a lie) capitalism isn't the problem, it's our gradual movement towards an entitlement society brought to you by the left.

The economic crash was caused by democrats and their affirmative action housing scam.
 
+Dave Tunc   if that was a full-on backhand, I see why you also argue so weak.  You do not seem to be able to read what is posted, maybe you can find some one to read the posts to you.  It is typical of inbred bed pissing moonshine swilling #teabillyfucksticks so I am not surprised at all.  It is hard to reason with someone that thinks "almost pregnant" means they are chasing their sister and she is not yet tired enough to catch. 
 
+Zander Gavin  

LOL its only invalid because it discredits your position.

the economy started tanking in 2003, right after the Bush tax cuts, look at the data, from 2002-2008 there was a -9% growth rate, I am not sure why you try to trivialize that indicator other then it does not support your argument.

Massive regulations?    how many of those did Bush veto?
Lets see....  hmmm... ZERO ?  That is why Halliburton is so massively regulated.    LOL

I was not aware the House was able to dictate government and set law all by themselves either.  What regulations have been removed ?   Hmm....let's see.... NONE ?  If they have such power, and the Right has been in control, why don't we have a budget? (The House is responsible for the budget)

And you forget a good portion of what you claim Obama raised the debt was actually Bush debt, hell, he had a $1.2T past due notice sitting in the Whitehouse mail box the day he took oath.  and he had two unfunded wars in-progress in various states of disarray through mismanagement over years.  Again, that kicks the legs out of your argument, so I see why you avoid discussing it.

Come back when you actually have an argument that at least
lines up with the way our government works and what history and public record clearly shows....
 
+Spencer Scott   yes that gradual slide since 1776. and the GOP has had 236 years to fix it. 
 
LOL, Obama trolls still can't stop blaming Bush.
 
+Spencer Scott  blaming Bush for things he is responsible for?  GOP trolls can not accept their stooge was a total fuckup  lol
 
And the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the economy crashing.  They helped pull us out of the Clinton recession.
 
Right....because nothing else would have caused the economy to decline.  
 
lol  thank you, can get to  use that "excuse" against your arguments too now, right  ?

Right...because nothing else would have caused the price of gas to go up.

Right...because nothing else would have caused the defect

Right..because nothing else would have caused (insert baseless claim of Left wing failure here )

Priceless.
 
Poor Obama troll, must be frustrating covering for this failed President.  
 
why does everyone think that you are defending someone when in fact you are just saying (and proving)  they are wrong?  Must be defending the puppet Obama, could not be they are just plain wrong....  lol
 
You haven't proved anything.  Hahahahaha.
 
Guess that is a matter of opinion but.... as they are your claims, the burden of proof is on you, not me :)  Party on Garth.
 
The Republicans should walk away from this and let the dems do what they want. BHO wants to go "over the cliff". He'll get the Military cuts he wants and the tax increases. If the GOP is involved in any way they'll get the blame for the ensuing heartache.
 
+William Carlson   but they can't walk away, they already tried that it quite frankly, it was one of the things that cost them the election.  I am not saying it was right or wrong , but BHO did put them over a barrel last year and they are still there.  They either raise taxes on the upper earners, or raise taxes on everyone.  That is where they are today, and they have to understand that the tax/budget proposal they are putting forward today is the same one that lost the election..
Should we go over the cliff, BHO will effortlessly pass a middle class tax cut and just leave the other untouched, it was strategically a brilliant political move, even if it is not what many think is the best course of action.
 
Quote from the Senate Finance Committee

"In less than two months almost every single American taxpayer will be hit with the largest tax increase in history unless the President leads by putting forward a reasonable plan that includes real reforms to the nation’s unsustainable entitlement programs.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said inaction on this so-called fiscal cliff is a threat to the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says failure to act will push the already weak economy into recession and force unemployment to surge past nine percent"
 
+Mike Mac  Why not just do this (CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)  said on Friday that Congress should hand over to President Barack Obama the power to unilateral increase the limit on the U.S. government's debt. this would slove everything for you right, lol! 
In effect, under the plan Pelosi is endorsing, the only limit on the national debt would be President Obama's willingness to borrow money in the name of American taxpayers.
 
+ImpeachOmama2014   what is there to solve for me?   why would you think I  think we should raise the debt limit like the GOP did year after year after year before BO took office?

The debt limit should not be raised, it should be lowered, and there should be substantial cuts in spending, starting with the biggest controllable expense, defense.

The GOP (your stooges) had no problems raising the debt ceiling year after year, that is one of the main reasons we are in this mess today, not because of BO trying to pay the past due bills the GOP amassed over the years with our credit.

The reason that was even proposed is to put the financial market at ease knowing someone will make a decision, and not have a critical issue tied up with the do-nothing House, and have our credit rating downgraded and the markets shudder like happened the last time the House sat on their hands until the 11th hour.

Good try Charles at putting words in my mouth, but your still a dumbass in addition to being 100% wrong.
 
+Mike Mac here the real game Democrats would rather humiliate GOP than solve fiscal cliff. edd say, lol
 
He gave me a phone ...he gonna do more! 
 
+ImpeachOmama2014  the GOP is humiliating themselves, all the Dems have to do is sit back and watch.   This has been in the hands of the GOP for months, they choose to not do anything about it.
 
+Raptor Dalan thought we cleared up your misinformation, the phones are a GOP thing, brought to you by the Great Communicator, Reagan.  and they aren't paid for from Federal Tax $, why would you lie and say Obama has anything to do with this at all?
 
Again, as it was explained to you Obama trolls.  It's the perception that Obama is giving "free sh*t", that's why they're called "Obama phones".  Check your phone bill, we are paying for it.
 
What +Mike Mac won't acknowledge is that National Defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the Federal Government. He hates the Military and those that served and wants to see it slashed to the bone just like Obama and the rest of his progressive buddies. They will however scream bloody murder if you mention cuts in any of their Unconstitutional give away programs that do nothing but buy votes for democrats.

The current level of spending is unsustainable but more revenue will only mean more spending. There will be no real cuts in the size and scope of government. They may reduce the rate of growth of a program and call it a cut but it really isn't. The ultimate end will be the elimination of the concept of private property. The government is already eyeing your 401ks.

I blame both parties but not equally. The dems are much more anxious to turn the United States into a socialist republic but Republicans on more than one occasion have embraced progressive ideas.
 
LOLOL  +William Carlson  continues to speak for me, and say what I think and feel, and as usual, he is wrong. (what else is new?)

and why because I think you personally are a deceitful asshole does that translate to "hates the Military and those that served"?  LOL    That is sad man, you have a lot of anger, maybe because you are not getting that government check every month.

I have already stated there needs to be a 33% across the board cut  including the military. 

What Willy-boy fails to acknowledge is defense is the largest controllable spending we have, and has been for decades. A good portion of what he is calling "entitlements" are earned and paid into programs, or consist of programs that support military retirements and benefits....  the irony....

Willy-boy and his cronies want to increase Defense, increase the size of government, not decrease any spending or reduce government.

WIlly-boy is calling for reducing benefits paid to his fallen comrades.  How do you think those fellow veterans that did not give their life but gave part of their body in their fight for the our rights, only  for him to come back thankfully in one piece and  be able to speak his mind freely, and promote taking away their wheelchairs,  prosthetic limbs, food for their children etc?

What about the widows and children of those that did not make it and now they rely on the government to support them? Willy-boy says they should lose their "entitlements" too !

WIlly-boy says the government is eying our 401K's?
Sure why not?  They (the GOP) have been eying and dipping into Social Security already, why not dip into another "earned" program to redistribute that wealth also?  But don't raise taxes, gawd forbid that.

Gosh when its all laid out and put in context and perspective...  wow....  just wow...
 
+Spencer Scott   yes, there are charges from telecommunications companies to pay for it, not federal taxes, but it was the GOP that put this in place.  Are you angry they do not call it the "Republican phone"?
 
Yes Obama troll, we know where it started, we also know democrats have drastically expanded it and it's another entitlement democrats pull for votes.  
 
nobody's expanded anything the program is exactly the same as it was in its conception. sorry the truth does not make a good argument for you 
 
I wonder how many elderly conservatives have a free Republican phone , and maybe they use it to call toll free government hotlines to check on their entitlements. 
 
oh the irony...... all the entitlements and benefits the right is jumping up and down and screaming about are the exact same ones that support their core Base.... 
 
and the same entitlement and benefit programs that pay military pensions, provide medical care for disabled veterans and their families. how could any true conservative ever support abolishment of such programs ? has the entire Republican Party became a bunch of RINOs, or is it just a few fanatical idiots that frequent Fox News ?
 
+Mike Mac I guess you now want to deny your previous posts, and of course since I disagree with you and call you out for the despicable troll that you are you want to dishonor my Military Service. Not a problem for me, I fought in two wars. You are nothing more than a classless asshole and a dishonest Obama shill. Amazing that you begrudge anyone that served just payment for that service and sacrifice. Do you realize just how small you sound when you mention me getting a government check?

When have I mentioned entitlements? You are talking about that, not me. Social Security is an entitlement from the stand point that those that paid into it are entitled by virtue of their financial sacrifice. The problem is people drawing benefits that never paid into it.

I never said anything about cutting Veteran's programs. I watched three good friends die in Afghanistan, and have five friends currently at Walter Reed. My father is a 100% disabled Viet Nam Veteran. So take your typically stupid lies about me somewhere else.

I take it you don't have a 401k. You are probably on a government or union pension that you didn't have to pay into, so hey that 240 billion in 401ks is just sitting there for the government to rob from and you are fine with it since it is someone else's property, not yours.

Again you deflect, twist, and dodge. Try reading the Constitution. National Defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the Federal Government. Taking care of Veterans should be part of that.

This whole discussion about the fiscal cliff is pointless anyway. Obama will get what he wants. Drastic Military cuts and tax increases on everyone. There will be attempt to reign in spending. The government will become even more far reaching and monolithic.
 
William.... why are you confusing a personal attack against you as an attack against your military service ? you're just playing the sympathy card..... 
 
. so William where do you think all these big cut in government will come from if it's not from your beloved entitlements you say you don't support cutting ? you can't have it both ways, and I'm very well aware 401 K's , I have more than 1 now, and as I previously stated I have spent my whole career fighting and avoiding unions, where do you come up with this shit ? honestly every day you come up with something different, when will you take a position keep it for more than 24 hours ? the care of veterans is not included in the current astronomical defense spending and never has been, . to do so would only result in additional government bureaucracy, completely duplicating existing infrastructure. so you now are saying we should expand government in that area as well ?
 
wow those benefits and entitlements you hate seem to hit a soft spot when there closer to home don't they?
 
but you're angry again at me, you claim I'm twisting and distorting, how is using your own words and feelings for you expressed openly against you distorting? you're the 1 that said it not me . all I'm doing is taking the opportunity to point out your hypocritical statements, just a suggestion... if you don't want to be painted in a corner, don't paint yourself in a corner. 
 
+William Carlson   I do want to apologize for being so harsh, but you have proven before, unless I do, you do not even read what I am saying and just go into offense mode with textbook rhetoric .  You read that post. I made sure of it and admittedly pushed your buttons.   I want to make sure that personally you understand I am not diminishing your military service, or that of any of your friends and comrades that were injured or lost.... nor am I attacking your family members or anyone on the basis of their military service.
I was attacking what you were saying, not what you have done.    As I have told you many times before (if you read it)
thank you for your honorable service and sacrifices for our country. 

We now understand that you agree the government should , in addition to defense, provide some benefits and "entitlements"

Romney discovered the risk of speaking and not understanding what the scope of the statement is,  constructive criticism is you are doing the same. 

Many others do the same and do not understand that benefit and "entitlement" programs they abhor so much actually are the fundamental basis for those things they pound their chest about.

Government benefits and "entitlements" are not bad, they are required.  Those that abuse them are bad.
 
+Mike Mac 

no one here is angry at you Mike, We saw full well how full of shit you where during the election.

We laugh that you still lurk the Fox News threads after you've shown just how incompetent and misinformed you really are.

You continuously spout conspiracy theory, yet at the same time voice your unchanging support for the dictator and his regime, never mind that the government is behind 80% of all conspiracies.

You regurgitate the Communist Manifesto, despite the fact every country that has ever followed it's principles is bankrupt, or is going bankrupt.

Your Logic, Wisdom, Intelligence  and Competence  Apparently don't exist. Your arguments are always invalid.
 
+Zander Gavin   LOL  where do you come up with this shit?   Are you a fiction writer in your "real life" ?  or are you just an asshole with irrelevant opinions there too? 

Funny thing is... everything I said during the election was true, and most of it was the reason the Obama won.  that must suck to have to live with that, I can understand why you would choose to attack me personally rather than accept that cold reality.
 
+Mike Mac 

You make me laugh. The only thing Obama's reelection did was speed up the inevitable collapse of this country. Nothing you said was true: He hasn't decreased the debt, he hasn't lowered unemployment, he hasn't worked bipartisan.

He has lied each and every time. and nothing you say can change that. So you can continue to claim what you want. But the Facts support my argument, not yours.
 
+Zander Gavin  interesting every stat shows your claim(s) to be untrue, but as I have stated before, never assume someone is defending someone just because they are pointing out your inaccuracies and hypocrisy . 

Obama does not have to be right for you to be wrong.
 
+Alexa Antonaras  I have not seen the historical stats but there were reports that the Right wing media have ignored that clearly show that spending is decreasing month over month.  The mainstream news organizations did what they usually do, reported it as news, then moved on to other news.  Sometimes I wish they would do what FOX does and latch onto something and keep regurgitating it over and over to make it sound like "more news"

But trends are....
spending is decreasing. 
Debt is decreasing.
The public sector is decreasing.
Unemployment is decreasing
Consumer confidence is increasing

It is what it is
 
"Sometimes I wish they would do what FOX does and latch onto something and keep regurgitating it over and over to make it sound like "more news"

You mean what MSNBC and the other 90% of liberal media does on a daily basis....
 
+Spencer Scott   LOL  any specific examples you have?  Do you have anything approaching the FOX Benghazi-esque level of lunacy in re-re-re-repeat "news" ?

I generally do not read a story more then once, but MSNBC may be different, I don't read much there at all.

and by "liberal" media, are you referring to what most other wack-job Rightwingnuts also call "everything but FOX" ?
 
Right Obama troll, it was lunacy to report on the lies that Obama and his administration gave about Benghazi.  Useful idiots.

By liberal media, we mean the 95% of the media that covers up for democrats and shows their bias on a daily basis.  
 
Yes +Alexa Antonaras  there is no dispute that FOX is biased Right to far Right. and they are a borderline "news" organization anyway, most of their content is editorial and opinion wrapped around a news tidbit and made to sound like bigger "news", but a lot of outright deliberate distortion. 

That is why they were not allowed to be licensed to be broadcast in Canada (FOX News USA Edition) because they fail the integrity standards of the Canadian equivalent of the FCC.
 
Nope, Obama administration refused security and refused to send backup when requested.  Then spent two weeks blaming the attack on a stupid YouTube video even though they knew it was terrorism on the same day.
 
Liberals believe Fox is biased because they cover the crooks in the democrat party.  They hate being called out on their corruption.
 
+Spencer Scott  you mean those things that you and the other Right-wing nut jobs say are lies but have no proof?

You know who I am talking about, you and others that fail to think that constitutional rights are applicable to everyone? Fortunately the real America has this little fundamental concept of freedom called "due process" , you may have heard about it.  Could you dry your piss off our Constitution and hang it back up on the wall before you leave, will you please?

it is a real pisser when rights apply equally to someone you disagree with, I get that.

And again, any specifics?  or just your usual baseless, broad brush accusations?
 
Oh please Obama troll, you are truly a fool if you believe the shit you spout here.  Really, head over to MSNBC or thinkprogress, you lunatics should be close to each other.
 
+Mike Mac You pay no attention to anything I've ever posted. You just key in on certain things and draw erroneous conclusions. And yes you have attacked me numerous times over my Military Service and that drawing a government check for this service is somehow wrong.

Again National Defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government along with regulating interstate commerce. Regulating Interstate Commerce means to settle disputes between states and enforce contract between states. Those are the only two functions given to the Federal Government under the Constitution. Certainly providing care for Veterans falls under National Defense but not necessarily in the same defense budget.

There are entitlement programs, but who is actually really entitled? IMO I'd say it was exclusive to those that paid in. IMO I believe these programs could be better managed at the state level. Much smaller bureaucracy and much more accountable to the people served. A Social Security program run by the state of North Carolina would be more specific and responsive to the needs of her citizens than a one size fits all federal solution that all states are forced into. Same for Medicare, or any other "entitlement program". I never claimed to be against them, I just think it is not the federal government's business. Again, people are entitled by virtue of having paid into these programs  in exchange for government promised benefits. Personally I think it'd be better for people to have a choice to put that money into another IRA or Insurance coverage.

The states should run their own 

80% of what goes on in DC should be turned over to the states and the corresponding federal offices closed. Federal Employees at the Social Security Office in Columbia would now be State Employees. The states would take over the existing federal offices. Do we really need a National Park System? Every state has a state park system. National Parks could be turned over to the states and integrated into the corresponding state park system.

Consider all the tax paying entities in South Carolina and you will realize that an enormous amount of money leaves the state to go to DC to support the monstrosity there. South Carolina could do everything the federal government is doing here cheaper and better. Prime example FEMA, four years since Katrina and they still can't find their asses with both hands in spite of Obama's promises.

I am not unilaterally opposed to any cuts in Military spending. However, the military seems to be the only place dems are willing to really cut. Mostly the reduce the rate of growth of an agency and call it a cut. I don't believe the Military should be cut during an ongoing conflict and I witnessed first hand the disastrous results of BHO's force reduction initiative while I was in Afghanistan. I also believe publicly announcing a withdrawal schedule from Afghanistan was a wrong headed campaign decision.

Hope this clears some things up.
 
And no, U.S. Constitutional rights don't belong to foreign terrorists. 
 
Hahahaha.  The most angry people on this planet are leftists.  
 
+Spencer Scott   I was not talking about you denying "foreign terrorists" any rights,  and neither were you, now your trying to make it that, good dodge attempt though.
We are talking about you denying American citizens the same rights you would scream bloody murder if anyone even suggested taking a portion of them from you.....

and I do not head over to MSNBC or other obvious Left wing media outlets like TP, if you think I would ever reference TP as a "fact" source you are high.  TP is on the same level as FOX in my book, equal offenders.
 
Leftists are the enemy of freedom and prosperity in America.
 
+Spencer Scott   most liberals I know are pretty laid back, most rarely get angry at all...  if you are seeing that liberals around you are all mad, maybe it is not them.  You know what they say, if you scrub your house from wall to wall and something still smells like shit....
 
+William Carlson    as I have said before, I never have attacked you for your military service.  You claiming so is trying to play a faux sympathy card.  I let a few things go but since you brought it up again,  I did point out some very disturbing things you were doing while still drawing a government check from our military.  Soldiers are required to respect their Commander-in-Chief, its a condition of employment and a condition of an oath, to God and country.
That is not attacking your military service, it is directed at your actions outside that.

I have on numerous occasions pointed out your hypocritical statements of shouting for smaller government, reduced spending, when you were pulling a paycheck from the single largest controllable expense driver for our entire government.
You disagree, I get that.

"Again National Defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government along with regulating interstate commerce."

I have never disagreed with that.

"Regulating Interstate Commerce means to settle disputes between states and enforce contract between states."

We could argue this, that is not the definition of regulation.
You can not redefine words and concepts to make an argument.  Regulation is more establishing standards and rules (contracts) and enforcing them.

"Certainly providing care for Veterans falls under National Defense but not necessarily in the same defense budget."

But today it is not.  It is separate and covered under what you define as "entitlement" programs.

If you do your 20 in the Guard, the defense budget will not pay your retirement, an "entitlement" program will.  The defense budget does not pay for healthcare for wounded veterans,  an "entitlement" program does.  when you are on active duty and your family receives medical benefits, the defense budget does not pay for them, an "entitlement" program does.  Now don't go all off saying I am attacking your family for your military service, I am making a point,
they are indeed entitled to those benefits, no question about it.

So clearly it does not or it would be that way already.
Should it?  I agree with you.

I cant budget a lot of time right now to banter details with you back and forth today, but I do offer for consideration:

Today we have federal organizations overseeing 50 states for various functions.  If you break that up and push it out to 50 states to manage, each state will have to establish their own management structure to do basically the same thing the Fed has been doing, are we sure that saying 50 individual states can do things more efficiently than one central group?  I would offer that any business or corporation would centralize such functions without even thinking about it, decentralization is the enemy of efficiency in manpower and costs.  You use the Dept of SS offices that reside in SC as an example, the state will have to establish management of those offices, and do so in accordance with all Federal level regulations , the Fed will still have to over see it, and now they have to oversee 50 discretely managed organizations. 

I agree in principle that there are some functions that can be successfully and efficiently decentralized, but its not all cut-n-dry as it sounds.  Anyone that has ever tried to run or manage such situations in a business knows this very well.

And you say SC is pumping all this money to the Fed to support everything, how much money does the Fed supply to SC?  What is the net-net ?  It is easy to say how money flows from the state to the Fed, but ignore the massive federal subsidies the states get,  huge massive federal efforts for natural disasters etc.   How many states could exist on their own revenues and budget?  Irony is, most of the Right states have very low population densities... they have the least internally generated revenues.  They would be the ones that would have the greatest problems supporting themselves. They lobby for the greatest federal subsidies.
 
+Alexa Antonaras  all of +Spencer Scott 's accusations have to be based on the fairy tale he is telling, otherwise he has nothing left to stand with.  The teabilly's are feeling the pressure, they had their 15 minutes of fame and now its over.
 
+Mike Mac All the money the Federal Government gets comes from the various states. There may some minor amounts that come from tarifs or other sources but by and large federal funding is money that has left the various states. After they spend what is needed to support the various bureaucracies at the federal level what is left is trickled back to the states with strings attached.
 
Sorry, some of us have to work to support the freeloaders aka Obama voters.  I said nothing about being jailed for your thoughts, I simply stated the fact that liberals are enemies of freedom and prosperity.
 
Ah Obama troll, the one who complains about Fox News and then spends all day trolling their feeds.  

It's hilarious Alexa you want to talk about facts and reason and then complain about the GOP.  You probably think Obama is truthful, eh?
 
The internet makes our government tell the truth.  HAHAHAHAHAHHA.  The delusional mind of a leftist.
 
Freeloaders can still work and collect government benefits.  Obama is the food stamp President and when he's done the majority will be hooked on government support.
 
+Alexa Antonaras anything he says is not bound to make sense lol  He is just dancing on your buttons (or trying too) that is all he ever does here, he never has anything constructive to add to any conversation.  He does not bother me, I just toy with him like a cat does with a dying mouse...
 
+Spencer Scott   complaining ?  naw... I am just commenting and stating facts about FOX news, your the one complaining about the liberals you claim are destroying America.  whine whine whine, is that all you ever do ?
 
+William Carlson   well your correct, all the money comes from citizens residing in the states, but look at what is being spent.  How much of that federal debt money is flowing back to support the states?  if we say the federal government is the one actually spending the money on themselves, we are fooling ourselves. 

The Fed is in debt because there is not enough money to pay for what the federal government and all 50 states combined are needing to spend to meet their obligations.

is there waste?  sure.  But

the majority of our budget goes to pay for
a. defense - 24%
b. pensions - 22%
c. medical programs - 16%
d. welfare subsidy programs 18%

Don't crucify me for exact numbers but generally they should be kind of close. (if not it really does not matter a few % points as we will see)

Lets totally eliminate #4.  Wipe it off the board.  then lets raise defense spending 5%.

That leaves us still spending almost 88% of what we do today, no where even close to making a budget, no way.

Lets reduce each we can by 33%

Defense 24% to  16% savings of 8%
pensions - 22% - cant reduce, this will actually increase
Medical - 16% to  11%  ?  probably not possible at all.... but 4% for arguments sake.
Welfare 18% to 14% save 4%

that is a 16% savings (leaving 84% of what we spend today) ...  again... no where near what we have to cut.  and what about interest on debt? Only way we can reduce that is to pay the debt down, more spending on top of operating revenues.

so we raise revenues.  Even with a 33% cut, we raise taxes.
a lot.

We're screwed, time to start drinking heavily
 
+Mike Mac 

writing long diatribes does not mean you are correct. stating inaccuracies  is still called lying.

+Alexa Antonaras 

the debt is still above 16 trillion dollars. when it drops to fifteen and keeps dropping, THEN you can claim it is dropping. But when it drops by $5, only to be replaced by $100 Million. THEN you have no grounds to stand on.
 
+Zander Gavin  more empty rhetoric ? your good at issuing broad-brush non-specific statements with no basis of fact or detail, I will give you that.

You fail to acknowledge that the first step to reducing debt is slowing and reversing spending, which is happening and has quietly for months.  Now we continue to reduce spending and increase revenues to help pay down debt, we maxed our credit cards over the last 12 years, now we can not afford to pay the debt, period.  Raising taxes is like taking a second job to pay down debt.
 
O.o

how, pray tell, has Obama lowered spending, when OBAMACARE, which hasn't even taken full effect yet, is set to cost an annual trillion+ by itself?

again, your argument is invalid.
 
+Zander Gavin The fiscal shell game hid the fact that ObamaCare absorbs funding from other programs and doesn't include the expense of hiring tens of thousands of more Washington, DC bureaucrats to run the scam.
 
+Zander Gavin I guess you do not look at the stats that are out there.....  month over month spending has decreased

and your argument that spending  has increased is based on something that has not happened ?

Talk about invalid......
 
Oh great, spending is down .02020202% each month!  We'll pay off the debt in no time!  

LOL, just wait until Obamacare really kicks in.
 
+Spencer Scott spending is down, no matter how you try to trivialize that, after the run-away GOP spending that went on un-checked for years, this is a breath of fresh air.   And no, there is no way we will be able to pay down the debt just by reducing spending.  America needs that second job to pay off the credit cards, that second job will be higher taxes for those making over $250k... or  The GOP will let us go off the cliff and then our spending problem will be taken care of.
 
There will be no real cuts in anything other than the Military. The 33% across the board may have merits, but it won't happen. Talking about entitlements. If benefits were restricted to those that actually were entitled. ie those that paid in, there would be savings and those programs could be cut less although I'd prefer to have a choice to opt in or out. Federal Pensions could be phased out in favor of 401ks with matching funds like most everyone in the private sector. Tremendous savings here.

I still maintain that an enormous chunk of what goes to DC is consumed by unnecessary bureaucracy in DC and that portion could remain with the states benefiting the states by offloading many programs back to the states. As I mentioned before in most cases the infrastructure is in place it just needs to be handed over.

Doesn't matter. Like I say there won't be any cuts and everyone's taxes will go up. There is not a revenue problem, there is a spending problem. Government will continue to outgrow revenue.
 
Obama/dems have spent more than GOP ever has.  Save your BS for other libidiots.

Increasing taxes does absolutely nothing in helping the debt.  Especially when we have democrats spending like crazy and creating even more entitlement programs.
 
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think taxing people who make over $250K will solve anything.  People are already shedding jobs in preparation for Obamacare, and these idiots think taxing them more will help.
 
Oh hey, look at that great jobs report today.  500K left the workforce!  Lets tax people more!
 
+Spencer Scott   80% of the current debt was amassed either directly during GOP administrations and/or as a result of fallout/costs of policies and programs they implemented during their administrations,  save your bullshit and drama for others that are as misinformed as you.
 
Obama troll making shit up again..  
 
+William Carlson  I do agree there could be pension reform, but only for those future employees, or those that opt to go with a 401K. 

The pension today is the pension, it is part of the employment contract between the federal government and the employees.  and people are vested in their pensions even if they have not been paid out, so in order to put what they have vested today into a new 401K, we would have to borrow trillions...

Not that I think it is a bad idea, just do not see how it would work without digging us even deeper today ...   borrow a lot now or borrow even more later....

As far as the infrastructure being handed over for fed programs -> the state, , I agree, but there is still going to be a substantial cost of running that infrastructure, and even more overhead.  We may save at the federal level on BS but gain it all back across 50 states in realized decentralized operational   costs
 
+Spencer Scott  pssst... maybe you missed the reports over the last year.. spending has decreased.  or maybe you need someone to explain them to you or read them to you.

Also, some of those businesses have found out that their business has fallen off as a direct result of their reducing headcount due to Obamacare, and they have reversed their strategy....  it failed.

as for making stuff up, yes, I created all the graphs, reports etc and planted them across the internet and paid off all the financial analysts just to make you look like a uninformed dumbass.  smfh
 
The pension changes would have to be in phases. Perhaps those that are vested for small amounts could be bought out and rolled into IRAs.  Others would be grandfathered in. I do not think that people that were promised pensions should be cut off.
 
+William Carlson When I served in the US Army part of the entrance briefing was that all pay, promotions, benefits for veterans, retirement, etc., were subject to the whims of Congress. The feds have defaulted before and shall in the future, so be it. Nothing can ever be guaranteed on the backs of the taxpayer.
 
+Milton Ragsdale Yes. That's correct. And things have changed for my dad a number of times.

But I get your point, Once again the federal government can break good faith with men and women that serve in the Armed Forces, but God forbid bureaucrats in DC have their retirements converted to IRAs that they pay into.

BTW, I saw that you had been to Panama. Were you stationed at Ft. Clayton or Ft. Sherman? or were you part of Operation Just Cause?
 
In the Carter days,the country repented when they realized he did not know what he was doing.The Dem's have doubled down on Obama and now they are going to faced with their own buyers remorse in a big way.The House republicans are such chumps that they almost voted for a tax increase[thank God for the Tea Party republicans].Not one democrat voted for that bill,and yet the president and Harry Reid are going to blame them for it.They will probably get away with it because we don't have a free press anymore. Maybe after 3 months of the new Obama economy we'll have our own American Spring. 
Add a comment...