The GOP's last chance

#127
#127
therealUT said:
The term "entitlement" when applied to Congressional Appropriations does not mean what you think it means. I recommend you research "entitlements vs. discretionary spending".
Click to expand...
Mandatory spending=entitlements in their eyes i get it, they still act like it's their money anyway. That's the thing that pisses me off. It's really not theirs to begin with and it shouldn't be touched, maybe reformed but it's simply stealing if you take it from them now. Even worse is taking it from them and still making people pay it in. If you do away with it then give people back every dime they're owed and stop making people pay something they're never going to get back.
 
Last edited:
#128
#128
JayVols said:
Are you suggesting that oil prices are manipulated?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
BPV summed it up nicely.

I think that is obvious, anytime someone farts in the middle east now oil prices go up. Works that way with stocks also. Bernanke says a couple positive words and the market rallies.:crazy:
 
#129
#129
Cartervol said:
BPV summed it up nicely.

I think that is obvious, anytime someone farts in the middle east now oil prices go up. Works that way with stocks also. Bernanke says a couple positive words and the market rallies.:crazy:
Click to expand...

I usually say that someone in the ME must have the backdoor trots when oil goes up sharply. We're on the same frequency. Lol. It's pitifully sad, really.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#130
#130
I also find it interesting that free market forces (speculators) and quasi-governmental controls (OPEC) conspire together to inflate prices. We get screwed by both philosophies in this case.

Thread hijack over.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#131
#131
Cartervol said:
Mandatory spending=entitlements in their eyes i get it, they still act like it's their money anyway. That's the thing that pisses me off. It's really not theirs to begin with and it shouldn't be touched, maybe reformed but it's simply stealing if you take it from them now. Even worse is taking it from them and still making people pay it in. If you do away with it then give people back every dime they're owed and stop making people pay something they're never going to get back.
Click to expand...

Is there a difference, from this perspective, between SS, Medicare, and Unemployment?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#132
#132
JayVols said:
I also find it interesting that free market forces (speculators) and quasi-governmental controls (OPEC) conspire together to inflate prices. We get screwed by both philosophies in this case.

Thread hijack over.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Speculators can only impact in the short term. Over the haul, underlying commodity demand will drive pricing.

OPEC is pure collusion and wouldn't be allowed in our markets.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#133
#133
therealUT said:
Is there a difference, from this perspective, between SS, Medicare, and Unemployment?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
No but how can you just cut it off? It could be regulated that, when yours runs out you're done, Medicare, SS and Unemployment i have no problem with that. Free money to people that shouldn't be getting it i have a problem with :hi:
 
#134
#134
BigPapaVol said:
Speculators can only impact in the short term. Over the haul, underlying commodity demand will drive pricing.

OPEC is pure collusion and wouldn't be allowed in our markets.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am aware of supply/demand issues, but OPEC could supply more especially Saudi to alleviate prices.

Total agreement on your analysis of OPEC. That's why I wish we could get away from sucking on the teat of oil. Would love to tell them to shove their oil up their arse. We would save more on security spending. Unfortunately, there are few to no viable options at this time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#135
#135
Cartervol said:
No but how can you just cut it off? It could be regulated that, when yours runs out you're done, Medicare, SS and Unemployment i have no problem with that. Free money to people that shouldn't be getting it i have a problem with :hi:
Click to expand...

There should be at least a community service requirement for assistance. It could get some off the free ride if they see they have to work. Maybe not, but I would be less pizzed about welfare.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#137
#137
BigPapaVol said:
Speculators can only impact in the short term. Over the haul, underlying commodity demand will drive pricing.

OPEC is pure collusion and wouldn't be allowed in our markets.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

bingo. speculators primarily effect volitility.
 
#138
#138
JayVols said:
There should be at least a community service requirement for assistance. It could get some off the free ride if they see they have to work. Maybe not, but I would be less pizzed about welfare.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Yep i'm all in favor of making welfare workfare, also drug testing. You want free dime better not be spending it on dope or you won't get it. Get some of these bleeding heart liberals out of the way and this would be reality. I'm done in here.
 
#139
#139
Cartervol said:
Yep i'm all in favor of making welfare workfare, also drug testing. You want free dime better not be spending it on dope or you won't get it. Get some of these bleeding heart liberals out of the way and this would be reality. I'm done in here.
Click to expand...

Sensible position as I see it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#140
#140
Cartervol said:
No but how can you just cut it off? It could be regulated that, when yours runs out you're done, Medicare, SS and Unemployment i have no problem with that. Free money to people that shouldn't be getting it i have a problem with :hi:
Click to expand...

There is not an economically expedient way to calculate exactly how much certain individuals have paid in and received back; the majority of these records are still in paper form, and the workload and man hours involved to simply give individuals their money back would be ludicrous; not to mntion the impending litigation that would follow.

It may not be fair to just end the program but it needs to be done and needs to be done now.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#141
#141
From a purely commercial (non-government) perspective, any reasonable group of business leaders in a similar situation would look at significant, real cuts first, with a strategy and plan to hopefully increase revenues. Unfortunately in the real world there is no guarantee of increased revenues like there is for our government, which is part of the problem. So they continue to offer perceived cuts in spending (proposed to occur "down the road") while continuing to rely on increased taxes, and the major issues never really get addressed... just delayed.

I hope the GOP, or anyone in congress for that matter, draws a line in the sand and insists on real, immediate (or at least near term) cuts in spending and a smaller government. I am more than willing to invest more in a company (i.e. pay more taxes) if I see them taking necessary measures.
 
#142
#142
Cartervol said:
Yep i'm all in favor of making welfare workfare, also drug testing. You want free dime better not be spending it on dope or you won't get it. Get some of these bleeding heart liberals out of the way and this would be reality. I'm done in here.
Click to expand...

Would work and/or service requirements have a negative effect on the free market?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#143
#143
what has happened to the GAO report that identified 200 billion/year spent on redundant programs (among other things)?
 
#144
#144
therealUT said:
Would work and/or service requirements have a negative effect on the free market?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Good point. It probably would unless they were utilized like a prison/dui work program.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#145
#145
Bottom line is we need leadership to make some hard choices, it seems to me the left is unwilling to make serious enough cuts. The right isn't without blame here but their approach makes the most sense IMO.
 
#146
#146
IBlvNTmWrk said:
From a purely commercial (non-government) perspective, any reasonable group of business leaders in a similar situation would look at significant, real cuts first, with a strategy and plan to hopefully increase revenues. Unfortunately in the real world there is no guarantee of increased revenues like there is for our government, which is part of the problem. So they continue to offer perceived cuts in spending (proposed to occur "down the road") while continuing to rely on increased taxes, and the major issues never really get addressed... just delayed.

I hope the GOP, or anyone in congress for that matter, draws a line in the sand and insists on real, immediate (or at least near term) cuts in spending and a smaller government. I am more than willing to invest more in a company (i.e. pay more taxes) if I see them taking necessary measures.
Click to expand...

I honestly think this would be an acceptable position for most wealthy and upper middle class people. No one likes tax hikes but we are in a situation where the alternative is deadly. I would like to see republicans call obama's bluff and come out with a plan of significant immediate/near term cuts as well as future cuts in exchange for modest tax increases on everyone.

I also think this would also likely end Obama's presidency as it would put him in a no win situation.
 
#147
#147
therealUT said:
Would work and/or service requirements have a negative effect on the free market?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is something I've explored on here recently -- I believe I mentioned requiring welfare recipients to get signed off on 16 hours a week charity or local volunteer service. Also brought it up at the local dept of HR when I was talking to people, most seemed welcoming of the idea.

Spending a day to meet and chat with welfare recipients was a pretty eye opening experience. Recommended, though I was using it to write a research paper last term.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#148
#148
milohimself said:
This is something I've explored on here recently -- I believe I mentioned requiring welfare recipients to get signed off on 16 hours a week charity or local volunteer service. Also brought it up at the local dept of HR when I was talking to people, most seemed welcoming of the idea.

Spending a day to meet and chat with welfare recipients was a pretty eye opening experience. Recommended, though I was using it to write a research paper last term.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Would be interested in reading you findings.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#149
#149
JayVols said:
For full disclosure, I do support cuts coupled with tax hikes. I see it as the most honest way to tackle a problem this large.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Cuts will have a marginal, short term negative effect on demand as the economy adjusts. Tax hikes would have both an immediate and long term detrimental effect on the economy AND tax revenues. Attempting to raise taxes to help a weak economy is the logical equivalent of a retail store raising prices to improve sales.
 
#150
#150
lawgator1 said:
No, but he can honestly say that the Republicans are willing to cause a delay in the checks so as to resist getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Around 55% do not want tax increases to be part of the resolution... if he tries this... he will lose.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top