The Paul Ryan budget [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Paul Ryan budget


OctoberRust
10-11-2012, 10:12
This isn't about Obama, we all know he's horrible as well. Let's discuss the Paul Ryan budget. Here's Peter Schiff on him and his budget.

I know a lot on here say Romney/Ryan are "numbers" guys. Well, why aren't their "numbers" adding up?

Schiff basically telling it how I tell it here, minus everyone calling him a liberal, like many on here enjoy calling me.

Telling it like it is about Medicare. - YouTube

OctoberRust
10-11-2012, 14:10
Yep, the fake conservatives shut the hell up real quick when their budget is called out, and is explained why big gov't RINOs win in this democratic system we've installed, one amendment at a time, starting with the 17th.

cowboy1964
10-11-2012, 14:47
Hence the reason some of us have been saying we are doomed one way or the other. It's just a matter of which path you want to take.

OctoberRust
10-11-2012, 14:53
Hence the reason some of us have been saying we are doomed one way or the other. It's just a matter of which path you want to take.


Yep, and the video explains in good detail (given the short length of it) on why this is happening.

Still waiting for the day to tell these fake conservatives and liberals on here "I told you so".

Sooner or later, it'll be here. :supergrin:

Chronos
10-11-2012, 16:36
Confronting the reality of the present situation is absolutely essential for getting out of it, but it is a borderline trauma-inducing experience for most garden-variety GOP types who desperately want the effort to be as simple as registering their opinion on election day. This board and this thread illustrate the phenomenon well.

countrygun
10-11-2012, 16:40
Confronting the reality of the present situation is absolutely essential for getting out of it, but it is a borderline trauma-inducing experience for most garden-variety GOP types who desperately want the effort to be as simple as registering their opinion on election day. This board and this thread illustrate the phenomenon well.


That applies even more to the Libertarians who delude themselves into thinking one of theirs in the White House could change things without the long hard work of changing the complexion of the Congress so he has something and somebody to work with.

Chronos
10-11-2012, 16:47
That applies even more to the Libertarians who delude themselves into thinking one of theirs in the White House could change things without the long hard work of changing the complexion of the Congress so he has something and somebody to work with.

That's a much higher-order problem. It would not exist if the GOP consistently had the fortitude to talk about economic reality.

countrygun
10-11-2012, 16:57
That's a much higher-order problem. It would not exist if the GOP consistently had the fortitude to talk about economic reality.


Just who is theis "GOP" of which you speak?

Some mythical monster, or a bunch of elected representatives?

If they are elected, wouldn't the answer be to elect different ones?

Chronos
10-11-2012, 17:04
Just who is theis "GOP" of which you speak?

Some mythical monster, or a bunch of elected representatives?

If they are elected, wouldn't the answer be to elect different ones?

Please see the original post for the fundamental problem with that. It's a recurring theme since ancient Greece. And that is why thinking out of the box is so imperative.

jdavionic
10-11-2012, 17:10
Huh, the same guy that supports RP and recently gave a speech at the Paul Festival. That Peter Schiff?

Wow, here I thought Nobel Economists would carry more credibility
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/08/16/nobel-economists-back-mitt-romneys-plan
"Who's got the best plan for bringing America's economy back from the doldrums? Well, according to more than 400 prominent economists—including five Nobel laureates—it's Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan."

countrygun
10-11-2012, 17:11
Please see the original post for the fundamental problem with that. It's a recurring theme since ancient Greece. And that is why thinking out of the box is so imperative.

So there needs to be a change.

A third party can' t seem to change the Congress even when the Congress is divided into so many small voting sections. They can't stay wound up enough, or get enough votes, to make every single election they can vote in count. Their answer is to get wound up every four years and yell "we want something else" and expect the voters who don't elect many of their people to offices at all, suddenly have an epiphany and elect one to the highest office in the land and that will fix everything.

To me it sounds a lot like the people who thought that one person was going to change everything and voted for Obama.

pinning the hopes on one office doesn't seem to be thinking "outside the box" to me.

Chronos
10-11-2012, 17:24
So there needs to be a change.

A third party can' t seem to change the Congress even when the Congress is divided into so many small voting sections. They can't stay wound up enough, or get enough votes, to make every single election they can vote in count. Their answer is to get wound up every four years and yell "we want something else" and expect the voters who don't elect many of their people to offices at all, suddenly have an epiphany and elect one to the highest office in the land and that will fix everything.

To me it sounds a lot like the people who thought that one person was going to change everything and voted for Obama.

pinning the hopes on one office doesn't seem to be thinking "outside the box" to me.

I agree with you that political solutions (including 3rd parties) are not "out of the box" enough -- and that's a difficult and traumatic truth to face up to. People know how to vote, and they feel powerless when they get the news that it's just not going to be enough to turn the fundamental, driving forces that have been destroying democracies for millennia.

beforeobamabans
10-11-2012, 17:47
There is no such thing as a "Paul Ryan Budget" except as a democratic diversion.

Gunnut 45/454
10-11-2012, 19:07
Well gee the Liberal Progressives went of the hook on this modest approach! :whistling: What would they do if you actually put out a real cut to the bone/get rid of all entitlements budget? They would implode would they not? Do you think you could get ONE FREAKING DUMOCRAT to vote for it? Is that what you want a one budget cutting everything to the bone to get it under control now or a modest budget to start to undue the 4 decades of Progresive entitlements corruption? Or are you a get rid of the hole Federal Gov . now an start over type- like thats going to happen short of Revolution.:upeyes:

series1811
10-12-2012, 07:23
Yep, and the video explains in good detail (given the short length of it) on why this is happening.

Still waiting for the day to tell these fake conservatives and liberals on here "I told you so".

Sooner or later, it'll be here. :supergrin:

You post one commentator's negative view of a budget plan, and think everyone is going to come flocking in to discuss it when you don't even put any discussion out.

Just posting a video, and saying, "There." doesn't really cut it as a persuasive political argument.

OctoberRust
10-12-2012, 08:45
You post one commentator's negative view of a budget plan, and think everyone is going to come flocking in to discuss it when you don't even put any discussion out.

Just posting a video, and saying, "There." doesn't really cut it as a persuasive political argument.

I doubt you watched the whole video, he explains why no conservatives steps up to what a conservative should really stand for. Just as he said in the video, you can't explain it in just a 30 minute sound bite, just like I won't be able to type this up in one post, but I'll try to illustrate this for you, in a way you can comprehend.

I've explained this many time. Let me copy paste from a previous post, to save myself the typing.

Why the Romney and Obama administration are both failures are because...

Taxation without representation.

Not many could fathom conservative-libertarian policies, because their wife/friend/uncle/sister/brother/etc is either

1. on Social security or some sort of welfare program
2. is making a "career" out of the military
3. is a DEA agent
4. has some other subsidization of their job, because they weren't good/skilled/mixture of the above enough to adapt like a truly capitalistic system would require them to do.

Sad but true, and it hurts a LOT of people's feelings when I tell it how it is.

OctoberRust
10-12-2012, 08:46
Please see the original post for the fundamental problem with that. It's a recurring theme since ancient Greece. And that is why thinking out of the box is so imperative.


Exactly. Taxation without representation/democracy will always lead to this.

You'd think the "conservatives" on here would realize where a democracy leads a nation.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 10:57
Not many could fathom conservative-libertarian policies, because their wife/friend/uncle/sister/brother/etc is either

1. on Social security or some sort of welfare program
2. is making a "career" out of the military
3. is a DEA agent
4. has some other subsidization of their job, because they weren't good/skilled/mixture of the above enough to adapt like a truly capitalistic system would require them to do.

.

5. Retired young from a successful private career, taking no Government money and not thinking of Social Security as being more than a drop in the retirement bucket, not in the military, not working for the DEA, no Government subsidies whatsoever.

You forgot me.


But it was so nice of you to include #2 "Making a "career" out of the military. I have no skin in that except that I respect those who DO make a career out of the military because they protect MY skin and I appreciate it. Your inclusion of them in your little list will probably do more to alienate people than anything I could say about you.


People can now see the self-centered universe you spin in and see you and your ilk as the noisy little termites you are.

You can't walk that one back, and the obvious slur against the career military personel that protect your freedom just can't be explained away. If for no reason other than that I will continue to reject this most recent incarnation of a "Libertarian" movement as a leftist inspired "cotton candy castles" sales pitch that has a severe disconnect with the reality of the world and national security.

series1811
10-12-2012, 12:28
I doubt you watched the whole video, he explains why no conservatives steps up to what a conservative should really stand for. Just as he said in the video, you can't explain it in just a 30 minute sound bite, just like I won't be able to type this up in one post, but I'll try to illustrate this for you, in a way you can comprehend.

I've explained this many time. Let me copy paste from a previous post, to save myself the typing.

Why the Romney and Obama administration are both failures are because...

Taxation without representation.

Not many could fathom conservative-libertarian policies, because their wife/friend/uncle/sister/brother/etc is either

1. on Social security or some sort of welfare program
2. is making a "career" out of the military
3. is a DEA agent
4. has some other subsidization of their job, because they weren't good/skilled/mixture of the above enough to adapt like a truly capitalistic system would require them to do.

Sad but true, and it hurts a LOT of people's feelings when I tell it how it is.

You cutting and pasting from some commentator who is paid to generate controversy, isn't really the kind of thing to get anyone's feelings hurt with.

OctoberRust
10-12-2012, 13:16
5. Retired young from a successful private career, taking no Government money and not thinking of Social Security as being more than a drop in the retirement bucket, not in the military, not working for the DEA, no Government subsidies whatsoever.

You forgot me.


But it was so nice of you to include #2 "Making a "career" out of the military. I have no skin in that except that I respect those who DO make a career out of the military because they protect MY skin and I appreciate it. Your inclusion of them in your little list will probably do more to alienate people than anything I could say about you.


People can now see the self-centered universe you spin in and see you and your ilk as the noisy little termites you are.

You can't walk that one back, and the obvious slur against the career military personel that protect your freedom just can't be explained away. If for no reason other than that I will continue to reject this most recent incarnation of a "Libertarian" movement as a leftist inspired "cotton candy castles" sales pitch that has a severe disconnect with the reality of the world and national security.


Countrygun, you fall in the VAST minority, if your job is not somehow subsidized, and you're self made/self paid. We've discussed this before, and are on the same page as far as that part goes.

As far as your referring to #2. There's a BIG difference between serving your country, and making a career out of the military. I've seen/know, have plenty in my family that have done both. It's a BIG waste of money, right under Social Security (sorry, numbers don't lie). Whenever I point these two factors to our deficit, the left tells me I'm heartless and want old people to die from dismantling SS completely. And the self proclaimed "right" denounce me, claiming I lack "patriotism".

Again, this problem will never be fixed until we can fix our government. The taxed are not adequately represented, and will never be until the inevitable collapse.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

OctoberRust
10-12-2012, 13:18
You cutting and pasting from some commentator who is paid to generate controversy, isn't really the kind of thing to get anyone's feelings hurt with.


I was cutting and pasting one of my own posts.

That "commentator" though, predicted the housing collapse, while everyone else literally LAUGHED at him.

That "commentator" predicted the double dip recession, while Reagan's former economic advisor LAUGHED at him.

After the double dip recession we're having now, he's saying we haven't bottomed out. Guess what? People are laughing/dismissing him (including yourself it seems).

See a trend here? :dunno:

Bren
10-12-2012, 14:05
That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."[/SIZE] --Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Then again, sometimes the "peacemakers" are just cowardly and unpatriotic.:upeyes:

countrygun
10-12-2012, 14:14
Countrygun, you fall in the VAST minority, if your job is not somehow subsidized, and you're self made/self paid. We've discussed this before, and are on the same page as far as that part goes.

As far as your referring to #2. There's a BIG difference between serving your country, and making a career out of the military. I've seen/know, have plenty in my family that have done both. It's a BIG waste of money, right under Social Security (sorry, numbers don't lie). Whenever I point these two factors to our deficit, the left tells me I'm heartless and want old people to die from dismantling SS completely. And the self proclaimed "right" denounce me, claiming I lack "patriotism".

Again, this problem will never be fixed until we can fix our government. The taxed are not adequately represented, and will never be until the inevitable collapse.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


And how did being a "peacemaker" work for For a guy named Chamberlain and his Country in Herr Goerring's war?

OctoberRust
10-12-2012, 15:13
And how did being a "peacemaker" work for For a guy named Chamberlain and his Country in Herr Goerring's war?


There's more to it than that. Let's go back to WW1 and the versailles treaty. How'd that work out for the Nazi party?

I believe the CIA coins the term as "blowback".

OctoberRust
10-12-2012, 15:14
Then again, sometimes the "peacemakers" are just cowardly and unpatriotic.:upeyes:


I think I've said before. About 90% of Bren's posts are so intelligent, and he's great at articulating his point when he disagrees with you. He never accuses, calls names, or insults anyone. He's genuinely a good guy. :rofl:

nursetim
10-12-2012, 15:24
So what is the freaking answer. No side wants to give ground, AT ALL. So we just sit back and watch the slow motion train wreak, is that it? When this happens, not if, when, there will be a period of anarchy that should host a purge of politicians. Whoopsie, sound like something that happened in czarist Russia a few decades ago.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 15:37
There's more to it than that. Let's go back to WW1 and the versailles treaty. How'd that work out for the Nazi party?

I believe the CIA coins the term as "blowback".

So, now that you have told us about the causes of WWII perhaps you could tell us how Chamberlain's appeasement and avoid war strategy worked.

Chronos
10-12-2012, 15:49
5. Retired young from a successful private career, taking no Government money and not thinking of Social Security as being more than a drop in the retirement bucket, not in the military, not working for the DEA, no Government subsidies whatsoever.

You forgot me.


But it was so nice of you to include #2 "Making a "career" out of the military. I have no skin in that except that I respect those who DO make a career out of the military because they protect MY skin and I appreciate it. Your inclusion of them in your little list will probably do more to alienate people than anything I could say about you.


People can now see the self-centered universe you spin in and see you and your ilk as the noisy little termites you are.

You can't walk that one back, and the obvious slur against the career military personel that protect your freedom just can't be explained away. If for no reason other than that I will continue to reject this most recent incarnation of a "Libertarian" movement as a leftist inspired "cotton candy castles" sales pitch that has a severe disconnect with the reality of the world and national security.

No problem with "career military" as long as the military is not funded by threats of violence against the innocent and productive. The problem is that everyone secretly knows that no military the size of the US (with the cost of the all the rest of the world's militaries put together) would be funded by rational markets, and so everyone recoils in horror at the suggestion of market-funded government services, in general, and will inevitably reap the rewards in a few years.

jdavionic
10-12-2012, 17:59
You post one commentator's negative view of a budget plan, and think everyone is going to come flocking in to discuss it when you don't even put any discussion out.

Just posting a video, and saying, "There." doesn't really cut it as a persuasive political argument.

The interesting is the absolute silence on this...
Huh, the same guy that supports RP and recently gave a speech at the Paul Festival. That Peter Schiff?

Wow, here I thought Nobel Economists would carry more credibility
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/08/16/nobel-economists-back-mitt-romneys-plan (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/08/16/nobel-economists-back-mitt-romneys-plan)
"Who's got the best plan for bringing America's economy back from the doldrums? Well, according to more than 400 prominent economists—including five Nobel laureates—it's Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan."

Chronos
10-12-2012, 19:27
The interesting is the absolute silence on this...

That's because the conclusion of that article/letter is basically irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Everyone here already agrees with those conclusions, which I quote:

"In sum," they say, the Romney economic plan "is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future."

This has basically nothing to do with the long-term unsustainability of the present course, and of the basic perverse tendencies that appear inside every democratic system since ancient Greece.

countrygun
10-12-2012, 19:55
That's because the conclusion of that article/letter is basically irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. Everyone here already agrees with those conclusions, which I quote:



This has basically nothing to do with the long-term unsustainability of the present course, and of the basic perverse tendencies that appear inside every democratic system since ancient Greece.

And so it was said from the heights of Mt. Olympus

:upeyes:

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 21:02
Schiff is dead, spot-on here. Bullseye!

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 05:45
The interesting is the absolute silence on this...
They simply endorse the campaign promises of Romney. It's not an endorsement of the failed Keynesian policies we all know he'll continue to enforce. Among the campaign promises they all seem to like:



Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.

Romney may actually be able to reduce tax rates, but I do not believe he'll broaden the tax base, beyond the unemployed returning to work.



End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.

Unless we start abolishing entitlement programs, the debt cannot actually stop increasing. There is no other single issue that will negatively affect the lives of more Americans than the government's debt, and if history is any indication, it will simply grow until our way of life ceases to exist.



Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.

Romney defended TARP in the primary debates, so this smell like bulls**t. Additionally, there are more laws making things illegal in this country, than anywhere else on the planet. Going through every last federal regulation, and performing a truly rigorous cost-benefit analysis is impossible.





Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.

Ponzi schemes cannot be made sustainable. This is just stupid and unbelievable on its face.



Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.

Sounds good, but given Romney's belief that government must play a role in our healthcare, this rings hollow.



Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

Again, sounds like a good start. Whether or not Romney would actually lift a finger to make progress in this direction, remains to be seen.

series1811
10-13-2012, 06:14
Everybody wants pie in the sky. There are two realistic ways to get our debt under control.
1. A gradual change in our budget priorities that doesn't have much of a chance, but does have a chance. They Ryan plan.

2. Revolution, or civil war, or whatever you want to call it, and all that goes along with it (I support the Tea Party, but when I see what a small minority I am, and I don't feel like participating in a civil war, right now, I look for a more reasoable solution, one that may not benefit me that much, but hopefully will eventually return this country to my children and grandchildren).

The fact that Ron Paul, the Tea Party, or any other group calling for radical financial reform, gets only a small percentage of voters seems lost to many of those who support it.

Ron Paul is a complainer, complaining about the deficit, but only offers solutions that there is no way you are going to get 50 per cent of the people to accept right now.

Ryan, is a doer, and coming up with a budget that actually has a chance.

It's fun to wish for pie in the sky. I wish it, too. I just know better.

series1811
10-13-2012, 06:29
And, not all government provides no service, and not all goverment workers get paid for doing nothing. I did one thing, one day, that made my salary for the whole time I worked for the government, a really, good deal for the taxpayers (and it wasn't seizing money from anybody). :supergrin:

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 06:33
It's fun to wish for pie in the sky. I wish it, too. I just know better.
A chance to do what? If the answer is increase spending and increase debt, then yes, it does have that chance.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HjAY0kUTyrw/T3FxLCuWc2I/AAAAAAAAOs8/iTbSz-q2JKw/s400/obama%2Bvs%2Bryan%2Bmedicare.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nCpW63uh0nk/T3S6tMtwH7I/AAAAAAAAOu8/-XwszqOoq2k/s400/public%2Bdebt%2Bobama%2Bvs%2BRyan.png

series1811
10-13-2012, 06:48
Okay, then. Well, give us your realisitic budget, that you think has a snowballs chance in hell in passing.

You don't have to get in to specifics. Just tell us what you will do in the really broad categories:



Here's a chart to help see where it went in 2011, so you know how much you need to cut right away, since you are going to do it faster than Romney and Ryan.

http://underthemountainbunker.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1-14.jpg

Tell us which areas you think you can get a consensus, or even a majority, of the country, to agree to cut.

Stubudd
10-13-2012, 07:23
Good grief series. It doesn't matter how many people will vote for it or cheerlead for it, unsustainable is unsustainable. It doesn't matter how many people want to pretend pie in the sky can go on forever. You see, it's you that's preaching pie in the sky. You, Obama and ryan and 99.9% of washington are for more pie in the sky. Read what chronos and machinist and others have already posted- all your questions have already been answered.

Stubudd
10-13-2012, 08:00
"Well you guys don't have the votes, well how are you going to get that plan passed". It's like some people take pride or comfort in the fact that "the majority" are oblivious, or that most politicians will keep robbing us blind until there is nothing left to take. Your wise majority has chosen oblivion, chosen to stay ignorant and vote for more pie in the sky advocates and promises, and the bloodsuckers up there are only too happy to oblige you.

That's how the "conservative" party's "budget hawk" can have a record of voting for more stimulus, more spending, more everything. He writes some numbers in the air that increase spending slightly less than the other guy and he's a "budget hawk', lol.

Here he is begging for more redistribution when we're already going broke, then blaming it on his co-conspirators later. And somehow, you guys can't figure out these guys are all bloodsucking liars, when it's right in your face.

Watch Paul Ryan Debate Himself on the Value of Stimulus Spending - YouTube

callihan_44
10-13-2012, 08:26
I trust peter's advice, however we got what we got...YOUR not going to find a politician that is willing to do what is necessary to balance the budget...people have become dependent on the handouts and the government has created a mess we may never get out of unless we have a reset.....

Stubudd
10-13-2012, 08:27
Massive social programs, trillions of dollars in spending, government health care, wars all over the world, and taxing the ever shrinking number of producers into the ground to pay for it all, while believing this can go on indefinitely- that's pie in the sky. Ryan, romney, obama and the rest of them, and the people that keep subscribing to their lies- they are for pie in the sky.

certifiedfunds
10-13-2012, 09:19
Okay, then. Well, give us your realisitic budget, that you think has a snowballs chance in hell in passing.

You don't have to get in to specifics. Just tell us what you will do in the really broad categories:



Here's a chart to help see where it went in 2011, so you know how much you need to cut right away, since you are going to do it faster than Romney and Ryan.

http://underthemountainbunker.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1-14.jpg

Tell us which areas you think you can get a consensus, or even a majority, of the country, to agree to cut.

People here have ridiculed me when I stated that 100% of federal revenue is spent on welfare. This chart pretty clearly illustrates it.

Federal Revenue $2.2T

Spending on:
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
"Safety Net"
Food
= $1.86T

That's 84% of federal revenue spent on welfare

It stands to reason that if you start analyzing most of the additional red catagories that you will come up with the additional 16% in welfare spending or $340B.

FFR Spyder GT
10-13-2012, 09:21
5. Retired young from a successful private career, taking no Government money and not thinking of Social Security as being more than a drop in the retirement bucket, not in the military, not working for the DEA, no Government subsidies whatsoever.

You forgot me.

OK, I'll add you to the list.........

6.) +50yo SWM's w/out kids (think God! ) that lives with their Mom, has a "Command Post" in their Mom's basement and has a part-time job at the Pizza Pit.



countrygun you crack me up. :rofl:

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 10:02
Okay, then. Well, give us your realisitic budget, that you think has a snowballs chance in hell in passing.
Any budget that could divert us from the course we're on has zero chance of happening. Our government, the malicious and parasitical entity that it is, will borrow and spend until it dies. Which is soon.

certifiedfunds
10-13-2012, 10:11
Any budget that could divert us from the course we're on has zero chance of happening. Our government, the malicious and parasitical entity that it is, will borrow and spend until it dies. Which is soon.

The funny thing about collapses of this nature is that they happen suddenly.

Like a flock of blackbirds changing course mid flight, sentiment suddenly changes.

Stubudd
10-13-2012, 13:09
This is great. "i'm a big believer in getting money where the money is, and the money is in washington." "We're gonna be so creative in going after every federal agency that we're even gonna get a million dollars from the dept of education." The kids get some tickets and- much better- we get the million dollars. How sweet is that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SEnqVY0ArdA#!

The money is in washington, and you can rest assured mitt is trying like hell to get in there with it, lol.

There are people here that defend these crooks every day- defend the people that lie to your faces, then divvy out your confiscated money to their friends. Wake up. At least some of the horde of dem voters get a crumb from their choice of chief crooks, what with welfare and all- if you pay taxes to this monstrosity, all you get is robbed. You guys are the only real losers in this game- the crooks at the top win, their big money backers win, the welfare horde wins in their own way, you lose.

countrygun
10-13-2012, 13:36
countrygun you crack me up. :rofl:


Just repaying the favor for the laugh your statistical analysis skills give me.

To rephrase an old line

"I've fired guys that were better than you

Cavalry Doc
10-13-2012, 14:29
Yep, and the video explains in good detail (given the short length of it) on why this is happening.

Still waiting for the day to tell these fake conservatives and liberals on here "I told you so".

Sooner or later, it'll be here. :supergrin:

Oh, look. Another superpatriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Patriot_%28Marvel_Comics%29).

If you'd have been paying an ounce of attention around here, most of us don't like Mittens, but like Barry a lot less.

"Fake" is pretending that someone other than Romney or Obama will be president in late January. It might suck, but some of us live in reality.

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i52/5/2/27/fbz_136fcd3039b794fb44dcdb1d24bd88d5.jpg

jlavallee
10-13-2012, 14:58
Get in line you libertarians. We may not plan to do much differently than the Democrats but we're going to will success. Uh huh.

Jesus will come back and save us all as soon as we help Israel. :rofl:

You can't fix stupid.

countrygun
10-13-2012, 15:01
Get in line you libertarians. We may not plan to do much differently than the Democrats but we're going to will success. Uh huh.

Jesus will come back and save us all as soon as we help Israel. :rofl:

You can't fix stupid.


Seems like you guys are the ones waiting for a miracle.

Ruble Noon
10-13-2012, 16:31
This is great. "i'm a big believer in getting money where the money is, and the money is in washington." "We're gonna be so creative in going after every federal agency that we're even gonna get a million dollars from the dept of education." The kids get some tickets and- much better- we get the million dollars. How sweet is that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SEnqVY0ArdA#!

The money is in washington, and you can rest assured mitt is trying like hell to get in there with it, lol.

There are people here that defend these crooks every day- defend the people that lie to your faces, then divvy out your confiscated money to their friends. Wake up. At least some of the horde of dem voters get a crumb from their choice of chief crooks, what with welfare and all- if you pay taxes to this monstrosity, all you get is robbed. You guys are the only real losers in this game- the crooks at the top win, their big money backers win, the welfare horde wins in their own way, you lose.

That video is disgusting.

series1811
10-14-2012, 05:45
People here have ridiculed me when I stated that 100% of federal revenue is spent on welfare. This chart pretty clearly illustrates it.

Federal Revenue $2.2T

Spending on:
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
"Safety Net"
Food
= $1.86T

That's 84% of federal revenue spent on welfare

It stands to reason that if you start analyzing most of the additional red catagories that you will come up with the additional 16% in welfare spending or $340B.

And, yet, there are still people, even on this board, who really believe, that just cutting the budgets of federal agencies providing services, would make a difference. It needs to be done, sure, because there is a lot of waste in them, I saw it firsthand, but it wouldn't make a real difference.

It's easy to say we need to cut entitlement spending. But, soon you find that pretty much everyone is sucking on that government teat, one way or another, and everybody wants somebody else to get off.

The only thing that will work is a radical (even more radical than the Tea Party) revolution in this country. And, short of armed insurrection and civil war, I don't see it realistically happening or changing anything. Look how the Tea Party was demonized as dangerous, racist, neo-con bomb throwers, for simply wanting to significantly reduce spending, (and only to a level that really wouldn't get us out of this fix for a really long time).

Whatever we end getting from this mess, we can't say we didn't ask for it. We do, every election.

jlavallee
10-14-2012, 06:56
The conservatives claim to be moral but are just as addicted to spending. They refuse to accept that maybe defense isn't imperialistic activity all over the globe. I don't expect any morality from Democrats who's main priority is stealing but the Republicans used to talk about cutting spending even if they never did much.

Now, they are a total joke and if you talk about cutting the MIC or drug war they loose their ****. It's OK to borrow 43% and enslave future generations in debt though. :upeyes:

The Ryan budget balances the budget in 40 years assuming interest rates don't go higher. Brilliant, just brilliant.

It doesn't matter, the GOP will make the middle east safe for Jews and Jesus will take care of them come the rapture. :rofl:

series1811
10-14-2012, 07:10
Now, they are a total joke and if you talk about cutting the MIC or drug war they loose their ****. . :rofl:

Perfect example of what we are talking about. What do you think we spend on the drug war every year? For example, what do you think the DEA budget is and how much of the federal budget it is every year?

Look it up and you will see that cutting (relatively) small federal programs is like deciding you are going to fix the fact that you can't pay your mortgage by $5000 a month, by not buying any more ice cream cones for your kids.

It's going to be scary when everyone finally understands this.

jlavallee
10-14-2012, 07:27
Perfect example of what we are talking about. What do you think we spend on the drug war every year? For example, what do you think the DEA budget is and how much of the federal budget it is every year?

Look it up and you will see that cutting (relatively) small federal programs is like deciding you are going to fix the fact that you can't pay your mortgage by $5000 a month, by not buying any more ice cream cones for your kids.

It's going to be scary when everyone finally understands this.

The Military Industrial Complex takes a huge piece of the pie and as for the drug wars, you have to remember that it isn't just the DEA, it is all the people in jail for non violent crime. We jail more than China and why? All those people are a drain instead of some actually adding to society. What cost does that have to our court systems, local police and what does it do to individuals who get arrested, then have a record and have their future limited because they chose to injest something. Because some people in this country can't get past the idea of prohibition and mind their own damn business.

I don't give a rat's if it isn't a huge number anyway. All of these BS agencys need to go. Any new Federal agency ought to need Constitutional ratification.

Ruble Noon
10-14-2012, 08:05
Perfect example of what we are talking about. What do you think we spend on the drug war every year? For example, what do you think the DEA budget is and how much of the federal budget it is every year?

Look it up and you will see that cutting (relatively) small federal programs is like deciding you are going to fix the fact that you can't pay your mortgage by $5000 a month, by not buying any more ice cream cones for your kids.

It's going to be scary when everyone finally understands this.

People are starting to understand this. Look at the cities that are eliminating police departments because they cant afford them. A small town in my area ended their police dept. this week. Another city closed the community pool and is cutting back on other amenities and yet another town is ending maintenance on hot top roads, letting the roads deteriorate and the eventual plan is to let them revert back to dirt.
However, reality hasn't set in in DC.

Federal Reserve flirting with higher inflation

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-flirting-higher-inflation-110531528--business.html

They plan to keep the charade going at all cost and the eventual result is that we end up like Greece, Spain etc.

countrygun
10-14-2012, 11:11
It doesn't matter, the GOP will make the middle east safe for Jews and Jesus will take care of them come the rapture. :rofl:

Do you seriously think that is the explanation behind the GOP, support of Israel and conflict with Isalm,or do you just throw it in to every thread you can for some other purpose?


Oh well, keep it up. As long as goofballs like you are running around blowing the third party trumpet it is going to remain a very tiny parade.

F350
10-14-2012, 11:47
[QUOTE=OctoberRust;19506986]This isn't about Obama, we all know he's horrible as well. Let's discuss the Paul Ryan budget. Here's Peter Schiff on him and his budget.

I know a lot on here say Romney/Ryan are "numbers" guys. Well, why aren't their "numbers" adding up?

Schiff basically telling it how I tell it here, minus everyone calling him a liberal, like many on here enjoy calling me.

A Presidential budget submitted to congress is very much like a battle plan..... Neither one survives first contact.

F350
10-14-2012, 11:48
This isn't about Obama, we all know he's horrible as well. Let's discuss the Paul Ryan budget. Here's Peter Schiff on him and his budget.

I know a lot on here say Romney/Ryan are "numbers" guys. Well, why aren't their "numbers" adding up?

Schiff basically telling it how I tell it here, minus everyone calling him a liberal, like many on here enjoy calling me.

A Presidential budget submitted to congress is very much like a battle plan..... Neither one survives first contact.

certifiedfunds
10-14-2012, 14:14
[QUOTE=OctoberRust;19506986]This isn't about Obama, we all know he's horrible as well. Let's discuss the Paul Ryan budget. Here's Peter Schiff on him and his budget.

I know a lot on here say Romney/Ryan are "numbers" guys. Well, why aren't their "numbers" adding up?

Schiff basically telling it how I tell it here, minus everyone calling him a liberal, like many on here enjoy calling me.

A Presidential budget submitted to congress is very much like a battle plan..... Neither one survives first contact.

Who's calling Schiff a liberal??????

series1811
10-16-2012, 06:31
The Military Industrial Complex takes a huge piece of the pie and as for the drug wars, you have to remember that it isn't just the DEA, it is all the people in jail for non violent crime. We jail more than China and why? All those people are a drain instead of some actually adding to society. What cost does that have to our court systems, local police and what does it do to individuals who get arrested, then have a record and have their future limited because they chose to injest something. Because some people in this country can't get past the idea of prohibition and mind their own damn business.

I don't give a rat's if it isn't a huge number anyway. All of these BS agencys need to go. Any new Federal agency ought to need Constitutional ratification.

Actually, we don't really jail many people federally for non-violent crime. And, if you think the people who are locked up were contributing to our society in any meaninful way, you need to meet some of them. I don't know where you get that.

But, you're who we are talking about, when we say people don't have a clue where the real money is going. One Keyhole satellite costs the taxpayers more that the the entire DOJ budget, and I bet most people here don't even know what one is. Do you?

jlavallee
10-16-2012, 07:02
Actually, we don't really jail many people federally for non-violent crime. And, if you think the people who are locked up were contributing to our society in any meaninful way, you need to meet some of them. I don't know where you get that.

But, you're who we are talking about, when we say people don't have a clue where the real money is going. One Keyhole satellite costs the taxpayers more that the the entire DOJ budget, and I bet most people here don't even know what one is. Do you?

I'm talking about the bigger picture. What happens when a young kid is arrested for some possession charge and then because he has a record can't get certian jobs, can't be bonded etc? We create a huge crime element through prohobition and that serves no benefit. What you endorse actually creates more risk to people than simply accepting that people will use if they are that type no matter what you do. Remember our last prohobition? Do you realize we've not made even a dent in the number of addicts since the 70's but we've spent an estimated nearly two trillion on the war on drugs. Our last three Presidents have all admitted to using illegal drugs in their younger years and ignoring the fact that we'd be better off had they been caught and ineligible for office, the fact remains that other kids have had their futures ruined because other people feel like they have some right to tell them what to ingest.

Your spy telescope example means what? Because we waste more somewhere else, this waste is OK? That is brilliant, way to use logic.

Our military spending is nearly 1/2 of the total military expendature of the planet! Even a very low estimate has us spending nearly six times the budget of the next biggest spender China. For what? All great nations fall as a result of imperalism and we're ignoring the advice of our founders. Defense I am 100% for but pre-emptive war is not defensive nor is having military bases the world over.

You're who we talk about when we point out the ignorant mentality of some who can't mind their own business. You think you have that right. The bible thumping right wing nut job and the hard core leftist are exactly the same.

series1811
10-16-2012, 08:04
I'm talking about the bigger picture. What happens when a young kid is arrested for some possession charge and then because he has a record can't get certian jobs, can't be bonded etc? We create a huge crime element through prohobition and that serves no benefit. What you endorse actually creates more risk to people than simply accepting that people will use if they are that type no matter what you do. Remember our last prohobition? Do you realize we've not made even a dent in the number of addicts since the 70's but we've spent an estimated nearly two trillion on the war on drugs. Our last three Presidents have all admitted to using illegal drugs in their younger years and ignoring the fact that we'd be better off had they been caught and ineligible for office, the fact remains that other kids have had their futures ruined because other people feel like they have some right to tell them what to ingest.

Your spy telescope example means what? Because we waste more somewhere else, this waste is OK? That is brilliant, way to use logic.

Our military spending is nearly 1/2 of the total military expendature of the planet! Even a very low estimate has us spending nearly six times the budget of the next biggest spender China. For what? All great nations fall as a result of imperalism and we're ignoring the advice of our founders. Defense I am 100% for but pre-emptive war is not defensive nor is having military bases the world over.

You're who we talk about when we point out the ignorant mentality of some who can't mind their own business. You think you have that right. The bible thumping right wing nut job and the hard core leftist are exactly the same.

In a nutshell, why the debt and deficit will never be fixed. If you won't take the time to learn where the money is going, how are you going to participate in the solution?

jlavallee
10-16-2012, 11:32
In a nutshell, why the debt and deficit will never be fixed. If you won't take the time to learn where the money is going, how are you going to participate in the solution?

No, we've established where the money goes but the problem is people bent on getting their government involved in stuff it has no business being involved in.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 11:35
I'm talking about the bigger picture. What happens when a young kid is arrested for some possession charge and then because he has a record can't get certian jobs, can't be bonded etc? We create a huge crime element through prohobition and that serves no benefit. What you endorse actually creates more risk to people than simply accepting that people will use if they are that type no matter what you do. Remember our last prohobition? Do you realize we've not made even a dent in the number of addicts since the 70's but we've spent an estimated nearly two trillion on the war on drugs. Our last three Presidents have all admitted to using illegal drugs in their younger years and ignoring the fact that we'd be better off had they been caught and ineligible for office, the fact remains that other kids have had their futures ruined because other people feel like they have some right to tell them what to ingest.

Was it some secret that he drugs were illegal? The problem with the argument you put forward is the same problem that plagues the liberal ideaology. according to you "The person arrested is not to blame and has NO RESPONSIBILITY for the actions that landed him in jail, ohh nooooo it is the fault of those who wrote and enacted and enforce the laws. It isn't the convicts responsibility, it's society's fault that he chose to knowingly break the law.


Your spy telescope example means what? Because we waste more somewhere else, this waste is OK? That is brilliant, way to use logic.

Our military spending is nearly 1/2 of the total military expendature of the planet! Even a very low estimate has us spending nearly six times the budget of the next biggest spender China. For what? All great nations fall as a result of imperalism and we're ignoring the advice of our founders.

Do these "Founders" not include Jefferson? the man who dealt with the Barbary Pirates? The man who through the Louisianna purchase vastly expanded our empire on the continent? Nice to pick and choose you examples and selectively cite history. As to "All great nations...blah..blah.." Didn't the Roman society's degeneration into decadence and hedonism strike you as an interesting parallel to what you are encouraging?



Defense I am 100% for but pre-emptive war is not defensive nor is having military bases the world over.

A good offense is the best defense

You're who we talk about when we point out the ignorant mentality of some who can't mind their own business. You think you have that right. The bible thumping right wing nut job and the hard core leftist are exactly the same.

"We"?? you and yours are just another flavor of the left, you have just come up with a clever name. "re- labeling" and you have convinced some of the more intellectually feeble that you have created something "New and Improved" in politics.
You have just stolen dribs and drabs from here and there, mostly the left, and rebranded it.

jlavallee
10-16-2012, 12:13
"We"?? you and yours are just another flavor of the left, you have just come up with a clever name. "re- labeling" and you have convinced some of the more intellectually feeble that you have created something "New and Improved" in politics.
You have just stolen dribs and drabs from here and there, mostly the left, and rebranded it.

Yes screw the fact that other people ought to be able to determine how to live their lives. You know better.

Ignorant bible thumper.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 12:23
Yes screw the fact that other people ought to be able to determine how to live their lives. You know better.

Ignorant bible thumper.

Well you have just revealed your ignorance and your bigotry for all to see.

It is no secret around here that I am an atheist. My disagreement with your position has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

But you have stereotyped anyone who disagrees with you because YOU are narrow minded and cannot muster the intellectual material needed to conceive that ther might be more than one reason someone doesn't agree with you.

You are the new liberal version of Archie Bunker, every bit as bigoted, but in the name of liberal causes.

jlavallee
10-16-2012, 16:31
Well you have just revealed your ignorance and your bigotry for all to see.

It is no secret around here that I am an atheist. My disagreement with your position has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

But you have stereotyped anyone who disagrees with you because YOU are narrow minded and cannot muster the intellectual material needed to conceive that ther might be more than one reason someone doesn't agree with you.

You are the new liberal version of Archie Bunker, every bit as bigoted, but in the name of liberal causes.

Well if not for religion then explain how you justify preemptive war. Attacting someone in an attempt to prevent an attack without having been acted upon means you believe you have some right beyond defense to do so.

I apologize if you're not a bible thumper, that generally seems to the be norm for the war mongers here. If is isn't that book then what is it that gives you the right to promote the initiation of force? We all have some sort of religion since that is nothing more than a set of values we assign based on our personal morality. The key is are we able to mind our own business. See how that works?

For the record, I have no issue with people who want to believe in any religion. What I take issue with is the fact that anyone has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 17:11
Well if not for religion then explain how you justify preemptive war. Attacting someone in an attempt to prevent an attack without having been acted upon means you believe you have some right beyond defense to do so.


Religion is not the cause of all wars as you want to subtly imply. If someone says "I've got a gun and I am going to shoot you" and they reach undre their coat, am I preemptive if I shoot them first? How about destroying another Country's ability to carry out a threat before any of your citizens are killed, that seems to be a rather good thing to do.
Was the "Indian war" in this Country really because they weren't generally Christians or was it because they werre in the way of progress and wealth for some?


I apologize if you're not a bible thumper, that generally seems to the be norm for the war mongers here.

See the questions above




If is isn't that book then what is it that gives you the right to promote the initiation of force?

Again ^^^^




We all have some sort of religion since that is nothing more than a set of values we assign based on our personal morality.

No, not quite. That is an oversimplification for your purposes


The key is are we able to mind our own business. See how that works?


Trying hard here to figure out who this "We" is. Got a mouse in your pocket?




For the record, I have no issue with people who want to believe in any religion. What I take issue with is the fact that anyone has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life.







A society does have a right to set limits for behavior and actions. They do this by a thing called "Laws". They are the written expression of a social code.


This "Pie-in-the-sky" pseudo anarchist idea that nobody should tell others what they can and can't do is absolutely silly. For instance, we have laws against murder but we allow a man to defend his home through "Castle Doctrine" but WE do not allow him to carry out an "Honor Killing" within his castle because his daughter has "shamed the family". Other Countries do. It is that difference that points out there are different boundaries in different cultures and societies. We do tell others what they can do or not in keeping with our social code, by law.

The isolationist "Leave them alone and they won't hurt us" attitude shows a lack of understanding of international relations and the need for the protection of our assets.

Remember, since you like to lean on the Founders and history, that our Navy came about to protect our interests across the globe and protect the lanes of commerce.

This is what we did on the Barbary coast, under the Administration of one of the Founders. Was he a "warmongering Bible-thumper'?