|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
You use the post office as an example of a government run business, and you want people to listen to you at the same time?
I didn't say it was a well run business.. but it is a business.
And you might want too look at why the PO losses money each year.. there is much more to it than you think.
i know why they lose money. It's because of the very government you want us to trust to raise taxes AND cut spending, when they have never shown the initiative to do anything but the raising of taxes to overcome their own budget shortfalls, even though those shortfalls are because of poor planning, inefficient operation, and political dealing.
The won't support the post office, but they will mandate it into bankruptcy and even though it is blaringly obvious to even a 2nd grader that it's failing, they do nothing to correct it.
Our leaders have not done a damn thing in quite a long time to show they can be trusts.
"Fool me one, shame on me, fool me twice go ....yourself."
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You use the post office as an example of a government run business, and you want people to listen to you at the same time?
I didn't say it was a well run business.. but it is a business.
And you might want too look at why the PO losses money each year.. there is much more to it than you think.
i know why they lose money. It's because of the very government you want us to trust to raise taxes AND cut spending, when they have never shown the initiative to do anything but the raising of taxes to overcome their own budget shortfalls, even though those shortfalls are because of poor planning, inefficient operation, and political dealing.
The won't support the post office, but they will mandate it into bankruptcy and even though it is blaringly obvious to even a 2nd grader that it's failing, they do nothing to correct it.
Our leaders have not done a damn thing in quite a long time to show they can be trusts.
"Fool me one, shame on me, fool me twice go ....yourself."
Yup,, you don't know a damn thing about it.. 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,808
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,808 |
Quote:
During the Republican primary debates, Governor Perry performed pretty poorly, but he did propose something that I think merits serious consideration at all levels of government - Zero-based budgeting.
Following is an excerpt from Wiki:
Zero-based budgeting is an approach to planning and decision-making which reverses the working process of traditional budgeting. In traditional incremental budgeting (Historic Budgeting), departmental managers justify only variances versus past years, based on the assumption that the "baseline" is automatically approved. By contrast, in zero-based budgeting, every line item of the budget must be approved, rather than only changes.[1] During the review process, no reference is made to the previous level of expenditure. Zero-based budgeting requires the budget request be re-evaluated thoroughly, starting from the zero-base. This process is independent of whether the total budget or specific line items are increasing or decreasing.
The term "zero-based budgeting" is sometimes used in personal finance to describe "zero-sum budgeting", the practice of budgeting every dollar of income received, and then adjusting some part of the budget downward for every other part that needs to be adjusted upward.
Zero based budgeting also refers to the identification of a task or tasks and then funding resources to complete the task independent of current resourcing.
Advantages
1.Efficient allocation of resources, as it is based on needs and benefits rather than history.
2.Drives managers to find cost effective ways to improve operations.
3.Detects inflated budgets.
4.Increases staff motivation by providing greater initiative and responsibility in decision-making.
5.Increases communication and coordination within the organization.
6.Identifies and eliminates wasteful and obsolete operations.
7.Identifies opportunities for outsourcing.
8.Forces cost centers to identify their mission and their relationship to overall goals.
9.Helps in identifying areas of wasteful expenditure, and if desired, can also be used for suggesting alternative courses of action
Disadvantages
1.More time-consuming than incremental budgeting.
2.Justifying every line item can be problematic for departments with intangible outputs.
3.Requires specific training, due to increased complexity vs. incremental budgeting.
4.In a large organization, the amount of information backing up the budgeting process may be overwhelming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-based_budgeting
One of the reasons Jimmy Carter was a failure was zero based budgeting....
It is a miserable experience and you have no idea how much this concept is hated by those who are forced to implement it.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You use the post office as an example of a government run business, and you want people to listen to you at the same time?
I didn't say it was a well run business.. but it is a business.
And you might want too look at why the PO losses money each year.. there is much more to it than you think.
i know why they lose money. It's because of the very government you want us to trust to raise taxes AND cut spending, when they have never shown the initiative to do anything but the raising of taxes to overcome their own budget shortfalls, even though those shortfalls are because of poor planning, inefficient operation, and political dealing.
The won't support the post office, but they will mandate it into bankruptcy and even though it is blaringly obvious to even a 2nd grader that it's failing, they do nothing to correct it.
Our leaders have not done a damn thing in quite a long time to show they can be trusts.
"Fool me one, shame on me, fool me twice go ....yourself."
Yup,, you don't know a damn thing about it..
So please enlighten me sir. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,808
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,808 |
I will make a couple of comments, and not even touch the personal income tax issue.
The federal gas tax has not increased since 1994, Try to build a road with 1994 prices.
How come corporations such as GE, Exxon and Facebook have record profits, yet pay no taxes. I propose a corporate AMT, I have to deal with it, they can deal with it as well.
Historically, imports were subject to tariffs... Have you taken a look at revenue from tariffs of late?
As long as the right we hold to the Norquist approach that taxes can only go down, we are in trouble. The tax coed is a rigged game, and Norquist has made it impossible to correct something that is inherently flawed.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,808
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,808 |
Name one other business entity that is required by law to fund its pension obligations for the next 75 years in a 10 year window...
I doubt you will find one.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Quote:
How come corporations such as GE, Exxon and Facebook have record profits, yet pay no taxes. I propose a corporate AMT, I have to deal with it, they can deal with it as well.
Because these corporations are unfairly taxed but are rewarded with loopholes. These corporations are run by hard working individuals who need a break plus a few golden toilet seats.
Quote:
As long as the right we hold to the Norquist approach that taxes can only go down, we are in trouble.
But I've been told we live in a nation where there are too many takers who need to just pull themselves up by their boot straps?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,380
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,380 |
You made cuts and made more money on your end.
Lets see some cuts. That's the first thing a family does. They examine the phone bill, they examine the cable, they discuss if they really need to keep up the membership at the fitness center.
The problem with this bunch in Washington is they never cut. USUALLY THE BEST THEY DO IS CUT THE RATE OF FUTURE SPENDING.
Screw that. Tell me how that would have helped your family when it hit the bump.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,868
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,868 |
Exactly.
Using your example, Washington "cuts" the cable bill by deciding to only add HBO and Cinemax instead of all of the premium channels and the Playboy channel. That is a substantial cut in DC.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You use the post office as an example of a government run business, and you want people to listen to you at the same time?
I didn't say it was a well run business.. but it is a business.
And you might want too look at why the PO losses money each year.. there is much more to it than you think.
i know why they lose money. It's because of the very government you want us to trust to raise taxes AND cut spending, when they have never shown the initiative to do anything but the raising of taxes to overcome their own budget shortfalls, even though those shortfalls are because of poor planning, inefficient operation, and political dealing.
The won't support the post office, but they will mandate it into bankruptcy and even though it is blaringly obvious to even a 2nd grader that it's failing, they do nothing to correct it.
Our leaders have not done a damn thing in quite a long time to show they can be trusts.
"Fool me one, shame on me, fool me twice go ....yourself."
Yup,, you don't know a damn thing about it..
So please enlighten me sir.
Nope, you have it wrong, you go figure it out
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
Name one other business entity that is required by law to fund its pension obligations for the next 75 years in a 10 year window...
I doubt you will find one.
There it is,,
to make it even more silly to require this, look at what they've done to future retirees pensions and benefits.. They've cut them back. So they don't even need to fund them to the level they once did because the long term liability has been reduced.
My friend started for the PO in 1975. He retired 3 years ago. Had he not jumped out when he did, he'd have lost pension dollars and benefits going forward. I don't have the details, he's my friend and I wasn't about to pry into his personal finances.. But that's what he explained to me and another friend of ours.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
I think he has it right.
Since you "know" different, please, enlighten us. Perhaps we are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
Quote:
Quote:
Name one other business entity that is required by law to fund its pension obligations for the next 75 years in a 10 year window...
I doubt you will find one.
There it is,,
to make it even more silly to require this, look at what they've done to future retirees pensions and benefits.. They've cut them back. So they don't even need to fund them to the level they once did because the long term liability has been reduced.
My friend started for the PO in 1975. He retired 3 years ago. Had he not jumped out when he did, he'd have lost pension dollars and benefits going forward. I don't have the details, he's my friend and I wasn't about to pry into his personal finances.. But that's what he explained to me and another friend of ours.
Oddly, that is what Florida was saying. Perhaps he didn't make it clear enough for you, but I understood it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
Quote:
LOL Oh, I'm gonna get killed on this one..
It appears that you are and I'm really trying to figure out why...
As I understand your premise it is:
1. Simplify the tax code in some meaningful way (you use the flat tax example, though it is a staggered flat tax) so that essentially everybody pays something and there are no secret loopholes that the extremely wealthy get to use to avoid paying much if any taxes...
2. Greatly reduce the IRS...
3. Stop sending money to 3rd world countries when we have people here who need help...
4. Give an incentive for companies to bring jobs back into the US....
5. Get rid of NAFTA...
A few concerns.. you don't address business taxes.. second, I think everybody should pay something, even if you are below the poverty line.. hell half a percent is something but at least it makes you feel like you are part of the game... my problem with linking it to the poverty line is that the government can just find reasons to raise and lower the poverty line as it sees fit if it needs more income.... not sure what I would link it to but it wouldn't be that....
Overall I'm not sure what people have a problem with... we don't need to INCREASE the amount of revenue the government is getting, we just need to make sure that if Joe makes a million dollars that he pays at least as much by percentage and more by dollar value than Tom who made $85K...
It is pretty stupid that it takes more paper, ink, and confusion for me to figure out whether I qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit than it did to spell out all of my inalienable rights as an American Citizen...
I should be able to start the year thinking.. "Hey, my wife and I are going to make about $150K this year combined, my tax bill is going to be $XX. I need to put that away or have it deducted each check or whatever." Instead of the big tax mystery at the end of the year where I hope my W-2 was right based on my mortgage interest, my charitable contributions, my losses carried over from last year, my child tax credits, my solar panel credit, my obesity credit, and whatever else needs to be figured into your taxes...... to see if you have enough or are getting money back...
The reason I knew I'd get beaten up is because some folks believe the flap that spending cuts are the end all be all.. and that's foolish and quite frankly, stupid thinking.
You have to get to balance.. you have to cut,,, I mean meaningful cuts. But you also have to balance that with revenue enhancements and it doesn't have to be a tax increase at all.
in fact, it may end up being a tax decrease to MOST if not all of us. The reason that would happen or should happen is we would spread the tax liability over a larger number of earners. Both Small, Medium and Large earners.
My method brings back jobs, which creates more revenue, my methods bring fairness to the tax codes. My method promotes cutting things we don't need such as many IRS jobs we won't need if the tax code were simpler. People could plan.. I made X, I owe Y, send in a check or like you say, have it deducted from my paycheck.
And yeah, I think I did mention Business taxes. My methods stops companies like GE from making Billions and not paying one red cent in federal income tax (anyone wanna try and tell me that it's ok for GE not to pay income taxes)
I'm all for a Flat Tax for Business as well by the way.
See, the little guy pays taxes already. The small business doesn't get the breaks that a GE can take advantage of. I don't want the small business man taxed anymore then he is now.. maybe, we can find a way to lower it as well. That might promote the creation of more jobs maybe? dunno
But GE should NOT be allowed to get away with no federal income taxes... And I'm sure there are more examples.
Your Joe and Tom example is what I was trying for.. didn't nail it like you did. But that's the right minded thinking I had in mind.
Your last paragraph is a very good thought. We should be able to know going in to the year what our liability will be on a personal level. Is it too much to ask that it be the same for Business? with this leadership group, it is, but maybe with new leadership.. maybe not.
We need a house cleaning..
I hate saying it,, but I read the other day were there were over 1360 Militia groups that the Government is currently tracking. Some people would call them crackpots.. And some probably are. But if they are all crackpots, then so were our founding fathers.
We truly are right back where we started, taxation without representation. they don't represent us anymore, they all represent special interest groups.. That and the other thing they want is to divide us.
United we stand, divided we are easy to manipulate.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
I think he has it right.
Since you "know" different, please, enlighten us. Perhaps we are wrong.
No he doesn't, I never said I wanted to raise taxes.. In fact I want a flat tax system installed..
Guess you didn't catch that did ya.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Name one other business entity that is required by law to fund its pension obligations for the next 75 years in a 10 year window...
I doubt you will find one.
There it is,,
to make it even more silly to require this, look at what they've done to future retirees pensions and benefits.. They've cut them back. So they don't even need to fund them to the level they once did because the long term liability has been reduced.
My friend started for the PO in 1975. He retired 3 years ago. Had he not jumped out when he did, he'd have lost pension dollars and benefits going forward. I don't have the details, he's my friend and I wasn't about to pry into his personal finances.. But that's what he explained to me and another friend of ours.
Oddly, that is what Florida was saying. Perhaps he didn't make it clear enough for you, but I understood it.
If that's what he meant, fine, but I don't see it.., All he did was accuse me of wanting the federal government to raise taxes and run things.. that's exactly what I don't want.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think he has it right.
Since you "know" different, please, enlighten us. Perhaps we are wrong.
No he doesn't, I never said I wanted to raise taxes.. In fact I want a flat tax system installed..
Guess you didn't catch that did ya.
Okay, I think this is a clear communication problem. In his post, he mentioned that the gov't. has mandated that the post office fund the pensions for 75 years, and only given the p.o. 10 years to do so, although he didn't put it exactly in those terms.
In that same post, the first thing he said was about gov't......NOT the post office. At least that's how I read it. He said "I know why they lose money" (meaning the post office). He then said "the same gov't. you want us to trust to cut spending and raise taxes" (to balance the fed. budget) "has never done it before." (meaning cut spending).
Relax. Re read his post with an open mind. No one is attacking you.
In essence, this is what I took from his post (florida, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong): The p.o. is losing money because of the fed. gov't. mandates to pre fund 75 years of obligations.
This is the same gov't. you (daman) trust to raise taxes and cut spending........when they never cut spending.
You have mentioned that we need to increase taxes (perhaps not rates....but more people need to pay......and I think we could all agree on that) as WELL as cut spending. (real cuts).
Does that clarify what I took out of this for you? Or did I muddy the waters even more?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
OH I think I pretty much got attacked Arch.. First thing after my original post was from Peen.. How did he put it,, Oh yeah,, Fudge (something) We need to cut spending. As if that's the only answer Talking about falling for what the talking heads say.., Geesh. then someone else chimed in with agreement with peen.. It's like they didn't even bother to read what I said.. they just decided to attack so excuse me for taking the approach I did. Then DC jumped in not understanding why I would get attacked,. he must have read my post therefore he knew I was calling for SERIOUS Spending cuts.. Not superficial cuts to this years budget.. but meaningful REAL cuts to spending. I even gave an example. But did anyone see that.. Apparently not. I mention the post office as a business because they do indeed sell product (stamps, boxes) and Services (delivery) for a price. that's a business whether someone wants to accept that or not,, that's up to them. (think Fedex or UPS, virtually the same business the PO is, but the PO isn't a business but Fedex and UPS are, you wanna try and explain that) Then when I used that as an example that the government does indeed have a business side, holy smokes,, I get told that I bring up the post office and then expect people to take me seriously. Arch, I most certainly got attacked.. ain't no way around it. Misunderstandings aside, if he meant to say that the Post Office is forced to put 75 years of money away and had to do it over 10 years, then that's all he had to say.. Instead, he continued his assault asking me to explain it to him. So yeah,, I was attacked.. If you look at it, all I ever really said is that we need to reform the way we operate as a nation. I even suggested a few things. NOT ONCE did I say anything about raising taxes.. But that was one of the first things I was told I wanted.. Yup,, Attacked is a good word for what happened.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
You didn't get attacked.
I didn't realize you were referring to 3-4-5-6 other posters.
However, the gov't. does not have a business side. The gov't. does not run the post office, the post office runs itself. (just as you run your business yourself.....under the guidelines the gov't. mandates)
Our gov't. has no "business" side......unless you count taking money simply because you can as a "business."
When is the last time you heard any gov't. agency say "geez, we had a surplus last year, so we're giving money back."? Or, "geez, we had a surplus last year, so we're lowering rates"?
On the other hand, gov't. is great at saying things like "conserve water"......then turning around and saying "hey, you guys conserved so much water that we can't pay our bills, so keep using less water, but we're raising your water rate."
That would be akin to you, in your business, saying "hey, companies, I only have so many temps to place, you guys are using too many. Cut back." Then, a year later, you coming back and saying "hey, you guys cut back so many temps, we aren't making enough money, so we're going to raise our price. We're going to supply less, but charge you more."
Wouldn't ever work for you, would it?
It works for the gov't., for one simple reason: you obey, or you get shoved out.
You didn't get attacked anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Name one other business entity that is required by law to fund its pension obligations for the next 75 years in a 10 year window...
I doubt you will find one.
There it is,,
to make it even more silly to require this, look at what they've done to future retirees pensions and benefits.. They've cut them back. So they don't even need to fund them to the level they once did because the long term liability has been reduced.
My friend started for the PO in 1975. He retired 3 years ago. Had he not jumped out when he did, he'd have lost pension dollars and benefits going forward. I don't have the details, he's my friend and I wasn't about to pry into his personal finances.. But that's what he explained to me and another friend of ours.
Oddly, that is what Florida was saying. Perhaps he didn't make it clear enough for you, but I understood it.
If that's what he meant, fine, but I don't see it.., All he did was accuse me of wanting the federal government to raise taxes and run things.. that's exactly what I don't want.
I apologize you took my comment as stating YOU wanted to raise taxes, what I said and meant was you come across as saying we should "trust" the government if they come back saying we are making these cuts but we will also need to raise this revenue (whether that's taxes on individuals, or whatever) to make up for the lack of serious budget cuts. And quite simply I beleive they will raise their budget rather than cut it.
As far as the post office goes I stated that the government mandates(ie: the pension issue) the P.O. basically into bankruptcy, and turns a blind eye to the fact the P.O. can't afford it.
Even if you want to claim the PO is a government run business, which I don't beleive it is, it is hardly a positive model to use at this point.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Exactly.
Using your example, Washington "cuts" the cable bill by deciding to only add HBO and Cinemax instead of all of the premium channels and the Playboy channel. That is a substantial cut in DC.
You are partially correct. To equate what happens in Washington with the average family... if you ask Washington to live on less revenue, the first thing they will do is to say that with less revenue, they will have to shut off the electricity, the heat, and stop buying food staples like bread and milk.... this will scare the average American into believing that they really do need all of the money they get because nobody is paying attention to the fact that they are still getting cable with pay channels and filet mignon once a week...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
And to add to that..........nobody realizes that gov't. still has their "lunch meetings", or "dinner meetings"......all on the taxpayers dime.
Just today.....Obama is going to have a dinner meeting with republicans to try to figure things out. At an upscale DC restaurant. Paid for by us.
Why not have that "meeting" on the clock.....when the president and congress are supposed to be working? Why do they get yet another free meal?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Hasn't that been his whole campaign, free meals??? 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
Why do our gov't. officials think it is necessary and needed to have their "junkets" in Mexico, or Hawaii, or the Caribbean?
I guarantee - cut all the junkets out, and we save well over $85 billion a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,880 |
Quote:
Why do our gov't. officials think it is necessary and needed to have their "junkets" in Mexico, or Hawaii, or the Caribbean?
I guarantee - cut all the junkets out, and we save well over $85 billion a year.
That always flamed me too, especially since it is something we are always so conscious of in our office. Anytime food is purchased or events are held, the employees cover everything out of their own pockets.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348 |
Quote:
Why do our gov't. officials think it is necessary and needed to have their "junkets" in Mexico, or Hawaii, or the Caribbean?
I guarantee - cut all the junkets out, and we save well over $85 billion a year.
My first duty station when I was in the Navy (a few lifetimes ago) was Bermuda. I swear to God, there was a Congressional "Fact Finding" mission coming in once a week, with wives, children, etc...
I mean, it's cool, I got to meet and rub elbows with the family of the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs and all because I took them out on the Captain's boat, but yeah... it was government paid vacation land.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why do our gov't. officials think it is necessary and needed to have their "junkets" in Mexico, or Hawaii, or the Caribbean?
I guarantee - cut all the junkets out, and we save well over $85 billion a year.
My first duty station when I was in the Navy (a few lifetimes ago) was Bermuda. I swear to God, there was a Congressional "Fact Finding" mission coming in once a week, with wives, children, etc...
I mean, it's cool, I got to meet and rub elbows with the family of the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs and all because I took them out on the Captain's boat, but yeah... it was government paid vacation land.
It would be so, so simple to cut 85 billion, with not one single person getting hurt. It would be easy to cut $185 billion.
But no - we get "longer waits at airports, hundreds of thousands laid off, no tours at the whitehouse, cops out of work, firemen out of work, etc"
Instead of cutting fat, gov't. cuts services to prove a "point"......the point being "we need your money, and we'll get it one way or another."
Seriously, I've seen reports of our troops not getting enough ammo due to sequester, but at the same time, our gov't. is buying millions of rounds they don't normally buy...........many of them being hollow point - but those are, as we're told "for target practice".
Aircraft carriers not going out? Hundreds of thousands out of jobs? All because of $85 billion out of a close to $4 trillion spending gov't.?
I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Just today.....Obama is going to have a dinner meeting with republicans to try to figure things out. At an upscale DC restaurant. Paid for by us.
I just saw that... look, I'm not naive enough to think that this $1000 dinner tab is a big deal in the grand scheme of things but you are correct. We are already paying to fill the cabinets and refrigerators at the White House and pay for the chef that cooks the meals.. so why have this dinner a few blocks away at a restaurant? The money itself is not the big deal, it's the perception.... if the average family is broke, they don't go out to dinner.....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,348 |
Cutting $85 billion is this simple: Stop handing out $400-$800 billion every time you think the economy needs to be stimulated. Collect back the rest of the freaking money we bailed out the banks with. Sell off GM stock... wait, nm, that'd LOSE $85 billion 
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
The government is already owed an estimated $450 billion in unpaid taxes.... If I was broke, and somebody owed me money, collecting would be high on my list of things to do today. I'm sure it would be uncomfortable since a lot of it is owed by Obama's cabinet appointees, but still.... somebody has to make the call. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
$1000 dinner tab
That wouldn't even cover the tip.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,868
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,868 |
Quote:
Quote:
Exactly.
Using your example, Washington "cuts" the cable bill by deciding to only add HBO and Cinemax instead of all of the premium channels and the Playboy channel. That is a substantial cut in DC.
You are partially correct. To equate what happens in Washington with the average family... if you ask Washington to live on less revenue, the first thing they will do is to say that with less revenue, they will have to shut off the electricity, the heat, and stop buying food staples like bread and milk.... this will scare the average American into believing that they really do need all of the money they get because nobody is paying attention to the fact that they are still getting cable with pay channels and filet mignon once a week...
Actually, they would only stop buying for the neighbors.
The government itself would continue to eat and enjoy full lighting and entertainment as normal.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
$1000 dinner tab
That wouldn't even cover the tip.
I actually did forget to put a "0" on their... because I assume that if you have the President and 10 senators at a table talking about the budget, the rest of the restaurant is going to be empty....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
I did get attacked.. By many people.. Can we agree that the post office is a business? I'm sure we can. I mean, it sells goods and services. Can we agree that the Government tells the post office what it can and can't do? Well I think so, because when the PO wants to stop Saturday Delivery, they have to ask Congress for permission to do so right. So tell me again who runs the post office? Isn't the federal government requiring them to pay 75 years of pension money in 10 years? Ya know, for the Government not having a business side, they sure tell the post office how to run things don't they...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
Quote:
I did get attacked.. By many people..
No, you didn't get attacked.
Quote:
Can we agree that the post office is a business? I'm sure we can. I mean, it sells goods and services.
Yes. It is a business. It is NOT a gov't. business, however.
Quote:
Can we agree that the Government tells the post office what it can and can't do?
Yes, exactly as it tells me, and you, and every other business how it can be run. Gov't. did mandate something for the post office that it hasn't mandated for you and I.....yet.
Quote:
Well I think so, because when the PO wants to stop Saturday Delivery, they have to ask Congress for permission to do so right. So tell me again who runs the post office? Isn't the federal government requiring them to pay 75 years of pension money in 10 years?
Ya know, for the Government not having a business side, they sure tell the post office how to run things don't they...
And the fact that most people agree with you and you don't see it is, well........a brick wall.
Take off your "no one understands me" blinders.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,533 |
Quote:
Quote:
I did get attacked.. By many people..
No, you didn't get attacked.
That my dear friend is what it is in the eyes of the beholder.. My eyes tell me I was attacked..
Quote:
Quote:
Can we agree that the post office is a business? I'm sure we can. I mean, it sells goods and services.
Yes. It is a business. It is NOT a gov't. business, however.
Quote:
Can we agree that the Government tells the post office what it can and can't do?
Yes, exactly as it tells me, and you, and every other business how it can be run. Gov't. did mandate something for the post office that it hasn't mandated for you and I.....yet.
Quote:
Well I think so, because when the PO wants to stop Saturday Delivery, they have to ask Congress for permission to do so right. So tell me again who runs the post office? Isn't the federal government requiring them to pay 75 years of pension money in 10 years?
Ya know, for the Government not having a business side, they sure tell the post office how to run things don't they...
And the fact that most people agree with you and you don't see it is, well........a brick wall.
Take off your "no one understands me" blinders.
I honestly don't care what others think, I don't worry about who agrees with me or not. Paraphrasing Peens sig, if we all agreed, it would be a boring world.
I KNOW that the Post Office is a Business, I know that the Post Office has to get approval from Congress to wipe it's butt.. Something we in business DO NOT HAVE TO DO. Is it mandated to business that it doesn't pollute the air,, do you have an issue with that? It's mandated that Business pay it's taxes (unless your GE of course) do you have an issue with that? It's Mandated that Business pay it's employees at least a minimum wage. Do you have a problem with that?
Of course we both have a problem with Obamacare, but it's about time someone said it. Had Romney gotten in, not much would have changed. Look at his state of MA. then tell me he'd do another thing differently.. Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare
The Post Office is indeed a business.. and CONGRESS controls it.. So tell me again that the Government isn't in business. It's a direct competitor to Fedex and UPS.
We can agree to disagree on lots of stuff arch, but on these points, it's a waste of your time to try and convince me otherwise..
Oh,, I don't wear blindfolds....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Why do our gov't. officials think it is necessary and needed to have their "junkets" in Mexico, or Hawaii, or the Caribbean?
I guarantee - cut all the junkets out, and we save well over $85 billion a year.
One of these things is not like the rest.
One of these things is different!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Obama Renews Offer to Cut Social
Safety Net
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)