justincredible;644121 wrote:Make that 99 more and I agree.

99 more Rand Pauls in the Senate, 434 more Ron Pauls in the House and 1 Chris Christie in the White House.

jhay78;644268 wrote:And the Dems tried to cram every socialist piece of legislation they could down the Repub's throats while they had a supermajority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the presidency, and they were rewarded with a well-deserved thrashing in November.

The November 2010 elections were pure and simply about putting the brakes on the socialist train that's about to run us all off a cliff. It was NOT about "Well the Dems didn't get enough done, so let's throw them out" or "Gee the Republicans did a great job of stonewalling legislative accomplishments, so let's vote more of them in".

I respectfully disagree with your take on what the election was all about. I saw it as a referendum on jobs and the economy. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, although Senate rules allow the minority to effectively block any and all legislation, and the Repubs did just that. The Dems failed to pass legislation which would have boosted the economy and created an environment conducive to job creation. To see the election as a rebuff of "socialism" is foolish, as people vote with their pockets every time.

The Republicans didn't block the massive economic stimulus bill, and that worked like a charm. It's unfortunate for all of us that they didn't block it. I would love to know what bills they blocked you think would "boost the economy" though.

stlouiedipalma;644485 wrote:I respectfully disagree with your take on what the election was all about. I saw it as a referendum on jobs and the economy. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, although Senate rules allow the minority to effectively block any and all legislation, and the Repubs did just that. The Dems failed to pass legislation which would have boosted the economy and created an environment conducive to job creation. To see the election as a rebuff of "socialism" is foolish, as people vote with their pockets every time.

Oh I agree there will always be part of the electorate who vote their wallets, and that was part of the 2010 elections. But as Cleveland Buck posted, I'm curious what legislation Dems were trying to pass that Republicans blocked that would've stimulated the economy.

The feds need to make cuts, but wouldn't it be more beneficial to put out a plan that might actually happen? Kind of pointless to throw out such large cuts that won't happen in the near future.

I agree the budget needs to be significantly reduce, but it has to be a gradual path. Not too gradual, but consider that $500B is some 4.5% of GDP. Taking that much out of the system, inefficient as it may be, will probably throw us into recession, not to mention the economy currently isn't capable of absorbing all those govt job losses. Cutting $100-$150B each year over the next 4 years is probably the way to go.

Great thing about this - if the liberal media can get behind it (almost certainly unlikely) - is it will bring some attention to the truly wasteful spending going on. Get someone in Washington who doesn't play ball and screams over all the wasteful spending and earmark pandering and we might start getting somewhere.

If you lower the deficit by $100 billion per year it will take you 15 years just to get to a balanced budget. By then the U.S. credit rating will have already been downgraded, interest rates on our debt will be insane, and the national debt will be 400% of GDP. The dollar will be worthless and oil will be $1,000 per barrel. A recession would be gentle compared to what that will be like. We have to make significant cuts now, not $100 billion per year.

Cleveland Buck;644913 wrote:If you lower the deficit by $100 billion per year it will take you 15 years just to get to a balanced budget. By then the U.S. credit rating will have already been downgraded, interest rates on our debt will be insane, and the national debt will be 400% of GDP. The dollar will be worthless and oil will be $1,000 per barrel. A recession would be gentle compared to what that will be like. We have to make significant cuts now, not $100 billion per year.

+ Infinity.

We either make massive cuts now and have a rough adjustment, or when I get to be 45-50, the whole thing collapses. Pick your poison. Pain now or death later. I'm not being an alarmist, either. The government can't continue to spend like this without consequences. The way the generation in charge is running this fucking country into the ground is pathetic. Our generation and those after it are not going to have a good time of it at all. Thanks a lot boomers.

stlouiedipalma;644188 wrote:I don't know if the Republicans will get such a free pass with the voters if nothing gets done. They tried to block just about everything the Dems proposed for 2 years, yet were rewarded with gains in both houses of Congress. Now it's their turn to show voters they can get things done. If the Dems block them, will they get the same reward?

I know the Repubs face a near-impossible task, but maybe that just shows what dupes the voting public has become, to believe that changing the face of the House will be the cure-all for everything. Like I said earlier, it looks like this is turning into one gigantic spin game to blame each other for inactivity, with us as the suckers who get screwed. Maybe firm, short term limits are the answer here. Not getting to suck at the government's tit for more than 2 or 4 years will force some of these loons into doing their job. Hell, a lot of the freshmen in Congress have already had fundraisers for their next campaigns. I'd rather see them working on solving our problems.

The difference is that the general public did not want what the dems were ramming through so they were happy the repubs were blocking it.

As for right now, the general public wants what the repubs are trying to do, it could really backfire on the dems if they try to stop it.

If the dems really think the ideas of the repubs are that bad and will kill the country maybe they should let the repubs do it and watch it "fail" to sway the general public.

stlouiedipalma;644485 wrote:I respectfully disagree with your take on what the election was all about. I saw it as a referendum on jobs and the economy. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, although Senate rules allow the minority to effectively block any and all legislation, and the Repubs did just that. The Dems failed to pass legislation which would have boosted the economy and created an environment conducive to job creation. To see the election as a rebuff of "socialism" is foolish, as people vote with their pockets every time.

For a little over the first year the dems had a supermajority in the Senate, aka 60 votes that can kill any and all filibusters. So lets not act like the republicans could do jack crap about any legislation for over the first year of Obama's term.

Not until the special election in Massachussetts that gave the repubs 41 votes were the repubs even able to filibuster. So please get the facts straight. And even with that filibuster option the dems sent out enough "bribes" or "compromises" to still get health care out of filibuster hell in the Senate.

So please stick to the facts, the repubs could not really stop anything from passing for the last 2 years.

gut;644907 wrote:I agree the budget needs to be significantly reduce, but it has to be a gradual path. Not too gradual, but consider that $500B is some 4.5% of GDP. Taking that much out of the system, inefficient as it may be, will probably throw us into recession, not to mention the economy currently isn't capable of absorbing all those govt job losses. Cutting $100-$150B each year over the next 4 years is probably the way to go.

Great thing about this - if the liberal media can get behind it (almost certainly unlikely) - is it will bring some attention to the truly wasteful spending going on. Get someone in Washington who doesn't play ball and screams over all the wasteful spending and earmark pandering and we might start getting somewhere.

If you take 500B out of the federal budget you aren't taking 500B "out of the system" you are eliminating 500B of waste. Let's not act like government spending stimulates the economy.

jmog;645081 wrote:If you take 500B out of the federal budget you aren't taking 500B "out of the system" you are eliminating 500B of waste. Let's not act like government spending stimulates the economy.

Just because the government is doing the spending does not mean that economics is suddenly a zero sum game.

jmog;645081 wrote:If you take 500B out of the federal budget you aren't taking 500B "out of the system" you are eliminating 500B of waste. Let's not act like government spending stimulates the economy.

But math is math. $500B of deficit spending is @ 4.5% of GDP. If you remove that, by definition you have a recession.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/20/us-air-force-enlists-super-blimp-for-blue-devil-surveillance-ini/#comments

Hopefully he cuts shit like this. $211 million for a damned blimp?

I Wear Pants;645871 wrote:http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/20/us-air-force-enlists-super-blimp-for-blue-devil-surveillance-ini/#comments

Hopefully he cuts shit like this. $211 million for a damned blimp?

Agreed. Some sorry ass politicians with sorry ass ideas.

I Wear Pants;645871 wrote:http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/20/us-air-force-enlists-super-blimp-for-blue-devil-surveillance-ini/#comments

Hopefully he cuts shit like this. $211 million for a damned blimp?

A blimp that combines the work of other numerous aircraft in the battlefield.
I could see the usage in the field, but problem is it could probably get taken out by a SAM.

211 million probably not worth it, but hey cut that in half for an additional study or design.

ptown_trojans_1;645964 wrote:A blimp that combines the work of other numerous aircraft in the battlefield.
I could see the usage in the field, but problem is it could probably get taken out by a SAM.

211 million probably not worth it, but hey cut that in half for an additional study or design.

Not interested. The US military budget is already bloated beyond need, we don't need to spend 100's of millions on a blimp, no matter what the capablitlies of it are.

If they want a fucking blimp, tell them to call Good Year.

ptown_trojans_1;645964 wrote:A blimp that combines the work of other numerous aircraft in the battlefield.
I could see the usage in the field, but problem is it could probably get taken out by a SAM.

211 million probably not worth it, but hey cut that in half for an additional study or design.

lol, I actually shortly worked on that blimp, and it was engineered/made right here in Ohio FYI.

It was made at the Lockhead facility in Akron.

ptown_trojans_1;645964 wrote:A blimp that combines the work of other numerous aircraft in the battlefield.
I could see the usage in the field, but problem is it could probably get taken out by a SAM.

211 million probably not worth it, but hey cut that in half for an additional study or design.

Not going to give out too much information, but this blimp flies so high in the atmosphere that a SAM can't reach it.

jmog;646574 wrote:Not going to give out too much information, but this blimp flies so high in the atmosphere that a SAM can't reach it.

I was more thinking an S-400 or S-500 system like that Russians have that they will sell to many other countries in the next 10 years.

I would rather see the Department of Education restructured. Make a concise national curriculum for all core subjects, so a kid that moves from one state to another doesn't miss too much. Get rid of the state level Department of Education so that money is freed up to be used by the states as needed. We don't need both Departments at the National and State level.

mella;646664 wrote:I would rather see the Department of Education restructured. Make a concise national curriculum for all core subjects, so a kid that moves from one state to another doesn't miss too much. Get rid of the state level Department of Education so that money is freed up to be used by the states as needed. We don't need both Departments at the National and State level.

Exactly when did education become a national priority and not a local priority? I would much rather eradicate the Dept of Education and all of their corruption and union mentalities than eliminating the state's functions. There is no mandate for the federal government to take over educating our youth. And no, ptown, I refuse to buy the argument it's part of national security. If it was, then wouldn't we be run over with military schools? Wouldn't the military/SECSTSTATE/NSA/Joint Chiefs have some say-so in curriculum and control?

BGFalcons82;646675 wrote: And no, ptown, I refuse to buy the argument it's part of national security. If it was, then wouldn't we be run over with military schools? Wouldn't the military/SECSTSTATE/NSA/Joint Chiefs have some say-so in curriculum and control?

Look at the Cold War and the rise of technology and tech school. Look at places like MIT, RAND, Harvard, Cal Berkley, etc. that produced high level of physics, game theory, deterrence theory, etc. that led to our high level of science at our national labs. That is one of the main reasons why we "won" the Cold War. Now, young people are falling way behind in science and math and when they get to college, cannot catch up or grasp the complex issues.

Now, the lab directors regularly speak of a huge gap between the old Cold Warriors who are retiring and a new generation that has no concept of the high level of math and science needed. Look at organizations like AAAS, the National Academy of Science and their reports on the gap and its impact on national security.

The military school were originally engineering and science. They still are, but the needs for this country go beyond the small number of cadets that go through the halls.

I'm not a fan of the current Dept. of Education. But, I see its need to oversee in a limited way we are all on the right course to put science and math back in its proper place.

BGFalcons82;646675 wrote:Exactly when did education become a national priority and not a local priority? I would much rather eradicate the Dept of Education and all of their corruption and union mentalities than eliminating the state's functions. There is no mandate for the federal government to take over educating our youth. And no, ptown, I refuse to buy the argument it's part of national security. If it was, then wouldn't we be run over with military schools? Wouldn't the military/SECSTSTATE/NSA/Joint Chiefs have some say-so in curriculum and control?

Are you saying that having an educated population isn't important for a strong country?

I am simply saying that having a single, streamlined, efficient Department of Education is better and more cost effective than 50 different state run department of educations. This thread is about saving money through Rand Paul's budget, not another tired and old discussion about the evils of unions. Why are federal standards and worse than state standards? Why not eliminate all schools then you can exercise your personal freedoms and educate your children in any manner that you feel is fit and proper? There is nothing Socialist about having a single national curriculum. We have a single vision about interstate highways to make travel more efficient. Just because something is organized at the Federal level does not make it bad.

So anything outside of national defense is not a priority? What else is a national priority?

What do you want only local goverment in 50 self-serving states or 1 strong country made up of 50 organized states under the umbrella of an efficient government. Efficient does not mean socialism.