On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:48:04 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:11:56 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:17:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:58:01 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
In , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.

I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.



You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

So just how did you come to that number as a good number to supply our
military? What will you do with all of the soldiers who will be out of
the military and jobless?

Oops, he didn't think about that.

I've previously posted several times that the military downsizing should
take place as the economy and employment improves. The military remains
an employer of last resort for many, and for that, it performs a task
society needs.

We've been blowing a half trillion dollars or more on the military for a
long, long time. It's time for that lunacy to stop.


The soldiers are one issue but the biggest part of the military budget
goes to the military industrial complex and the people in that
business are smart enough to be sure they generate jobs in all 50
states so everyone in congress all has an ox to be gored if a contract
is cut. That is why we are building planes the pentagon doesn't want
like the extra C-17s.

Therefore, we should shut down the gov't because of Planned
Parenthood. I get it.

Are we changing ther subject again?

Trying to follow your logic is like riding a Mad Mouse.

According to you, one is never supposed to talk about anything unless
that's how the thread started. Why aren't you talking about Obama and
slavery???

There should be some logical flow in your response. We were talking
about military spending, 9 consecutive posts and you leaped to
abortion.

We (or Frogbreath) were talking about Obama and slavery. Why can't you
stay on topic?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:48:45 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:28:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:19:20 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:28:43 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:27:08 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:18:41 -0400,
wrote:

We should be concentrating on cutting back our miiltary expenditures
drastically, to the tune of $100 billion a year, until we are down to a
reasonable level. Half those savings can go to reducing the deficit and
half can go towards funding needed social programs. That, and a serious
tax increase on the wealthy, and we'll be out of the hole.


I agree we spend too much on the military but if you cut it to zero,
it would only cover half if the deficit. There are not enough rich
people to make up the other $700B.




You think all the deficit has to be paid down in one FY? I'm suggesting
we cut the Pentagon by $100 billion a year until we're only spending
$100 billion a year on the military, and using the savings to pay down
the deficit and fund needed social programs and infrastructure
rebuilding *and* increase income by making the wealthy pay a fairer share.

If you don't cut the deficit (the amount we spend vs what we take in)
you do have to pay it off every year. We are not talking about the
rolling debt, we are talking about how much more we spend every year
more than we take in.

No, you don't. Not in the short term. Only in the long term. It's an
issue that needs an intelligent solution, not cut gov't to the bone
and throw a bunch of people out of work.

What do you think will happen when these cuts have to be made because
our interest payments triple and we can't afford the entitlements?

Again, you always take the worst situation. Who says they all have to
happen at once? The right wing. There's no middle ground is there.


Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:41:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:53:15 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:




Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:53:15 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:



Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.
There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

And that's less than a third of what we waste on the military.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:06:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:52:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:41:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:53:15 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:13:28 -0400, wrote:




Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

We are not actually recovering anything if we are creating an
unsustainable debt.

Every time you buy a house and get a mortgage, you create an
unsustainable debt, since you have no absolute guaranty that you'll
have a job long enough to pay off the mortgage.

The key word of course is "if." Our debt may be "unsustainable" if you
assume the very worst case scenario. In all other scenarios, the
problem can be (and actually is being) address, even though you want
to believe otherwise.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:35:32 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:59:15 -0700, wrote:


Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

We are not actually recovering anything if we are creating an
unsustainable debt.

Every time you buy a house and get a mortgage, you create an
unsustainable debt, since you have no absolute guaranty that you'll
have a job long enough to pay off the mortgage.

It is not an unsustainable debt if you are generating enough revenue
to pay down the principle. We are not even stopping the growth of the
principle.

The key word of course is "if." Our debt may be "unsustainable" if you
assume the very worst case scenario. In all other scenarios, the
problem can be (and actually is being) address, even though you want
to believe otherwise.

I only assume the projected scenario in the best case examples given
by the people who have plans they can't even get passed. (like Simpson
Bowles or Ryan)

There is only one budget proposal out there that has the debt coming
down by 2021 but it gores so many oxen I doubt you could even get most
of the democrats to support it and you wouldn't get any republicans.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf


How about we start with subsidies and the military budget.

The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

The big oil subsidies, tax cuts for millionaires (Bush's cuts), tax
breaks for corps that create jobs overseas (lost revenue) is about
$170B.

Let's end those subsidies.

Then there's the military budget. How about not $1 more, as proposed
in the NYT op-ed piece..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.html

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:25:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:22:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:35:32 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:59:15 -0700, wrote:


Do you even have a clue how much of our debt is in short term notes
that roll over in months not years so the interest rate can change in
a flash. You keep talking about "long term" and "years down the road"
but we could get clobbered in a matter of months.

There's no evidence to support that fear.

One of these days you will hear a democrat say it and then it will
have been obvious all along to you.
The fact remains that there are a lot of these short term notes being
rolled over into long term paper. In a way that is good because you do
not have to keep going to the well for the money but the bad news is
the interest rate is about 10 times as high, being over 3% instead of
the 0.3% they pay on short term paper.
Right now our average interest rate on the debt is around 1.5%
($206.7 Billion a year)

Right now, we're trying to recover from a devastating financial
calamity. Right now is not the time to try and fix a long-term
problem.

We are not actually recovering anything if we are creating an
unsustainable debt.

Every time you buy a house and get a mortgage, you create an
unsustainable debt, since you have no absolute guaranty that you'll
have a job long enough to pay off the mortgage.

It is not an unsustainable debt if you are generating enough revenue
to pay down the principle. We are not even stopping the growth of the
principle.

The key word of course is "if." Our debt may be "unsustainable" if you
assume the very worst case scenario. In all other scenarios, the
problem can be (and actually is being) address, even though you want
to believe otherwise.

I only assume the projected scenario in the best case examples given
by the people who have plans they can't even get passed. (like Simpson
Bowles or Ryan)

There is only one budget proposal out there that has the debt coming
down by 2021 but it gores so many oxen I doubt you could even get most
of the democrats to support it and you wouldn't get any republicans.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf


How about we start with subsidies and the military budget.

The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

That is less than half of what they spend but I see your point.
I doubt anyone is really taking his idea seriously but I applaud the
bravery to even open the dialog. We do need to find a way to get a
handle on costs.

Less than half of what Medicare spends? So what. It's the meat of it,
as you know.

Ryan is NO HERO. He's a pandering jerk who wants to deny people basic
healthcare cover for the sake of big business and his own political
aspirations. He did "open the dialog" at all.


The big oil subsidies, tax cuts for millionaires (Bush's cuts), tax
breaks for corps that create jobs overseas (lost revenue) is about
$170B.

OK


Let's end those subsidies.

Then there's the military budget. How about not $1 more, as proposed
in the NYT op-ed piece..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20wed1.html

That is the hardest nut to crack, maybe even harder than entitlements,
simply because virtually every state gets pork from DoD.
I agree we build far too many unneeded weapons platforms.
Unfortunately, they all represent high tech jobs for someone.

As said, all that has to happen is not spend more. Spending the same
is a good start.

I liked Ed Rendell on one of the talking head shows proposing that we
take all of that effort and declare war on our aging infrastructure
with the same zeal we used to counter the various enemies, real or
imagined.
The other thing in the CPC budget Harry and I have been talking about
for years is defunding the Iraq and Afghanistan crusades.

The right wing is staunchly opposed to spending money on
infrastructure, unless of course, it's in their district.

The Iraq war is winding down, as you know. There's no need to pull the
rug out from a largely successful campaign to get us out without allow
the country to collapse. The Afg. war is in the make or break stage.
While no war monger, I think it's worth following Patreaus' advice for
now.

There are a reported 150 suspected (mostly low level) terrorists in
Afghanistan and we have 150,000 people looking for them.
That is projected to be $1.8 trillion in 10 years.
Instead we are spending another couple hundred billion on other
adventures in the middle east and we are not even sure who the people
we are putting in power will turn out to be.

A couple of hundred billion or things other than the Iraq/Afg wars?
Huh? Where are you getting that number?

In article ,
says...


There is only one budget proposal out there that has the debt coming
down by 2021 but it gores so many oxen I doubt you could even get most
of the democrats to support it and you wouldn't get any republicans.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf

That's a pretty good start.
I didn't read all the details, but I would prefer more reductions in
Medicare spending, and higher tax rates for millionaires.
Bring the debt down faster.
Jobs needs more thought. We need more manufacturing, even if those jobs
won't pay as much as they did in their heyday.
Jobs are the big revenue generator, the seeds of most good.
There are easy methods to knock 20% off Medicare spending with no
significant change to those who use it.
Another problem is I saw no ban of Lite beer.
As you say, it won't happen.
Congress is too full of dishonest flim-flammers.
Most who are sincere are stupid, or intransigent,
Pretty sad that this government has broken down.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:22:41 -0700, wrote:


The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

That is less than half of what they spend but I see your point.
I doubt anyone is really taking his idea seriously but I applaud the
bravery to even open the dialog. We do need to find a way to get a
handle on costs.


Ryan isn't brave, he's stupid and isolated in his little ideological
cocoon He wants to kill Medicare. His next step would be SS.
He had no idea how his "plan" would **** the GOP.
Don't mistake stupid sincerity for bravery.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:21:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:22:41 -0700, wrote:


The Ryan proposal calls for $165B cuts in Medicare ... basically
eliminating it.

That is less than half of what they spend but I see your point.
I doubt anyone is really taking his idea seriously but I applaud the
bravery to even open the dialog. We do need to find a way to get a
handle on costs.


Ryan isn't brave, he's stupid and isolated in his little ideological
cocoon He wants to kill Medicare. His next step would be SS.
He had no idea how his "plan" would **** the GOP.
Don't mistake stupid sincerity for bravery.

if he were brave he'd propose doubling capital gains taxes and
subjecting them to social security taxes