[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]UCGAL shhhhh…

Representatives swooshed that report under the rug really quick. The problem was that the report actually mad a hell of alot of sense but nobody has the stomach for it.[/quote]

the commission never issued a report.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]UCGAL shhhhh…

Representatives swooshed that report under the rug really quick. The problem was that the report actually mad a hell of alot of sense but nobody has the stomach for it.[/quote]

the commission never issued a report.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]UCGAL shhhhh…

Representatives swooshed that report under the rug really quick. The problem was that the report actually mad a hell of alot of sense but nobody has the stomach for it.[/quote]

the commission never issued a report.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]UCGAL shhhhh…

Representatives swooshed that report under the rug really quick. The problem was that the report actually mad a hell of alot of sense but nobody has the stomach for it.[/quote]

the commission never issued a report.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]It was suggested that the stimulus was not enough and it would be a good thing to reduce defense spending to zero.

I would say it is how the stimulas was spent rather that the amount. If was to have a stimulas effect government spending needs to provide the infrastructure, R & D funding for new technology, etc. The interstate freeway system is a great example of good use of govermnment spending easily showing a return on investment.

Regarding the defense spending I would sure like to know of the end point our foreign wars. Don’t like to read about so many American lives being lost without a defined objective. Wouldn’t it be great if our president took the lead on this?

So lets save money and lives and stop the war but continue to fund defense technology spending. There are many benefits to defense spending. Look at all the spinoffs from original defense spending. GPS is one and rocket technology for satellites just to name two.

This is both dems and repub not applying stimulas where it will help grow an economy.[/quote]

I agree with you about where the stimulus money was spent. About 1/3 of it was tax cuts, which did serve to stimulate consumer spending. Only about 15% was infrastructure andless than 5% R&D. That should have been more. It helped, but it was insufficient. Most of the rest was emergency funding, some of it essential, some not so much.

As to the defense spending, I’m not sure where anyone recommended it be cut to zero.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]It was suggested that the stimulus was not enough and it would be a good thing to reduce defense spending to zero.

I would say it is how the stimulas was spent rather that the amount. If was to have a stimulas effect government spending needs to provide the infrastructure, R & D funding for new technology, etc. The interstate freeway system is a great example of good use of govermnment spending easily showing a return on investment.

Regarding the defense spending I would sure like to know of the end point our foreign wars. Don’t like to read about so many American lives being lost without a defined objective. Wouldn’t it be great if our president took the lead on this?

So lets save money and lives and stop the war but continue to fund defense technology spending. There are many benefits to defense spending. Look at all the spinoffs from original defense spending. GPS is one and rocket technology for satellites just to name two.

This is both dems and repub not applying stimulas where it will help grow an economy.[/quote]

I agree with you about where the stimulus money was spent. About 1/3 of it was tax cuts, which did serve to stimulate consumer spending. Only about 15% was infrastructure andless than 5% R&D. That should have been more. It helped, but it was insufficient. Most of the rest was emergency funding, some of it essential, some not so much.

As to the defense spending, I’m not sure where anyone recommended it be cut to zero.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]It was suggested that the stimulus was not enough and it would be a good thing to reduce defense spending to zero.

I would say it is how the stimulas was spent rather that the amount. If was to have a stimulas effect government spending needs to provide the infrastructure, R & D funding for new technology, etc. The interstate freeway system is a great example of good use of govermnment spending easily showing a return on investment.

Regarding the defense spending I would sure like to know of the end point our foreign wars. Don’t like to read about so many American lives being lost without a defined objective. Wouldn’t it be great if our president took the lead on this?

So lets save money and lives and stop the war but continue to fund defense technology spending. There are many benefits to defense spending. Look at all the spinoffs from original defense spending. GPS is one and rocket technology for satellites just to name two.

This is both dems and repub not applying stimulas where it will help grow an economy.[/quote]

I agree with you about where the stimulus money was spent. About 1/3 of it was tax cuts, which did serve to stimulate consumer spending. Only about 15% was infrastructure andless than 5% R&D. That should have been more. It helped, but it was insufficient. Most of the rest was emergency funding, some of it essential, some not so much.

As to the defense spending, I’m not sure where anyone recommended it be cut to zero.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]It was suggested that the stimulus was not enough and it would be a good thing to reduce defense spending to zero.

I would say it is how the stimulas was spent rather that the amount. If was to have a stimulas effect government spending needs to provide the infrastructure, R & D funding for new technology, etc. The interstate freeway system is a great example of good use of govermnment spending easily showing a return on investment.

Regarding the defense spending I would sure like to know of the end point our foreign wars. Don’t like to read about so many American lives being lost without a defined objective. Wouldn’t it be great if our president took the lead on this?

So lets save money and lives and stop the war but continue to fund defense technology spending. There are many benefits to defense spending. Look at all the spinoffs from original defense spending. GPS is one and rocket technology for satellites just to name two.

This is both dems and repub not applying stimulas where it will help grow an economy.[/quote]

I agree with you about where the stimulus money was spent. About 1/3 of it was tax cuts, which did serve to stimulate consumer spending. Only about 15% was infrastructure andless than 5% R&D. That should have been more. It helped, but it was insufficient. Most of the rest was emergency funding, some of it essential, some not so much.

As to the defense spending, I’m not sure where anyone recommended it be cut to zero.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]It was suggested that the stimulus was not enough and it would be a good thing to reduce defense spending to zero.

I would say it is how the stimulas was spent rather that the amount. If was to have a stimulas effect government spending needs to provide the infrastructure, R & D funding for new technology, etc. The interstate freeway system is a great example of good use of govermnment spending easily showing a return on investment.

Regarding the defense spending I would sure like to know of the end point our foreign wars. Don’t like to read about so many American lives being lost without a defined objective. Wouldn’t it be great if our president took the lead on this?

So lets save money and lives and stop the war but continue to fund defense technology spending. There are many benefits to defense spending. Look at all the spinoffs from original defense spending. GPS is one and rocket technology for satellites just to name two.

This is both dems and repub not applying stimulas where it will help grow an economy.[/quote]

I agree with you about where the stimulus money was spent. About 1/3 of it was tax cuts, which did serve to stimulate consumer spending. Only about 15% was infrastructure andless than 5% R&D. That should have been more. It helped, but it was insufficient. Most of the rest was emergency funding, some of it essential, some not so much.

As to the defense spending, I’m not sure where anyone recommended it be cut to zero.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=SK in CV][quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)[/quote]

Is this what happens when you stop teaching what the Constitution says and instead teach what judges, politicians, and media personalities say it says? And I never mentioned anything about specific spending levels. Perhaps you were trying some sort of Jedi mind trick right out of Star Wars (“these aren’t the droids you’re looking for”)?

Now I’ll give YOU a head start: taxing for and spending on the defence of the United States is actually in the Constitution. Anything related to the Department of Education, for example, is not. There are others. Read the document yourself and discover the richness of your national heritage.

We’ve now reached a point where the left’s position — as made clear through court decisions and acts of government — is that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses are so broad as to allow virtually unlimited government activity. If that were true, however, the rest of the Constitution would have been pointless.

As far as the economic issues, politicians would do well to read what I wrote in the thread about gold. So-called “experts” have gotten so wrapped up in economic models and theory that they’ve lost sight of the basics of how and why it all works. People provide goods and services that other people want. People trade their excess goods and services for others which they desire. Currency makes these transactions more convenient and reliable. Generally, not only does government provide the goods and services people want more efficiently, it produces goods and services that most people don’t want, for a price that is not market driven and often too high, and forces wide swaths of the population — at the point of a gun — to give up large percentages of their income to pay for things they don’t want, and often for other people. Free people to spend their money on things they want and the economy will thrive for those who produce goods and services that others desire.

I’ve studied economic theory in upper division econ courses at the University of California (at San Diego — professor Bear anyone?) that seemingly involved little more than crunching differential equations, but the misleadingly simplistic explanation above is what most are missing today.[/quote]

Thanks for that. I don’t really see any argument there supporting your your orignal comment, unless you’re claiming that spending on education is prohibited under the constitution and that 3/4 of a trillion dollars of defense spending is mandatory. Good luck with that one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=SK in CV][quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)[/quote]

Is this what happens when you stop teaching what the Constitution says and instead teach what judges, politicians, and media personalities say it says? And I never mentioned anything about specific spending levels. Perhaps you were trying some sort of Jedi mind trick right out of Star Wars (“these aren’t the droids you’re looking for”)?

Now I’ll give YOU a head start: taxing for and spending on the defence of the United States is actually in the Constitution. Anything related to the Department of Education, for example, is not. There are others. Read the document yourself and discover the richness of your national heritage.

We’ve now reached a point where the left’s position — as made clear through court decisions and acts of government — is that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses are so broad as to allow virtually unlimited government activity. If that were true, however, the rest of the Constitution would have been pointless.

As far as the economic issues, politicians would do well to read what I wrote in the thread about gold. So-called “experts” have gotten so wrapped up in economic models and theory that they’ve lost sight of the basics of how and why it all works. People provide goods and services that other people want. People trade their excess goods and services for others which they desire. Currency makes these transactions more convenient and reliable. Generally, not only does government provide the goods and services people want more efficiently, it produces goods and services that most people don’t want, for a price that is not market driven and often too high, and forces wide swaths of the population — at the point of a gun — to give up large percentages of their income to pay for things they don’t want, and often for other people. Free people to spend their money on things they want and the economy will thrive for those who produce goods and services that others desire.

I’ve studied economic theory in upper division econ courses at the University of California (at San Diego — professor Bear anyone?) that seemingly involved little more than crunching differential equations, but the misleadingly simplistic explanation above is what most are missing today.[/quote]

Thanks for that. I don’t really see any argument there supporting your your orignal comment, unless you’re claiming that spending on education is prohibited under the constitution and that 3/4 of a trillion dollars of defense spending is mandatory. Good luck with that one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=SK in CV][quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)[/quote]

Is this what happens when you stop teaching what the Constitution says and instead teach what judges, politicians, and media personalities say it says? And I never mentioned anything about specific spending levels. Perhaps you were trying some sort of Jedi mind trick right out of Star Wars (“these aren’t the droids you’re looking for”)?

Now I’ll give YOU a head start: taxing for and spending on the defence of the United States is actually in the Constitution. Anything related to the Department of Education, for example, is not. There are others. Read the document yourself and discover the richness of your national heritage.

We’ve now reached a point where the left’s position — as made clear through court decisions and acts of government — is that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses are so broad as to allow virtually unlimited government activity. If that were true, however, the rest of the Constitution would have been pointless.

As far as the economic issues, politicians would do well to read what I wrote in the thread about gold. So-called “experts” have gotten so wrapped up in economic models and theory that they’ve lost sight of the basics of how and why it all works. People provide goods and services that other people want. People trade their excess goods and services for others which they desire. Currency makes these transactions more convenient and reliable. Generally, not only does government provide the goods and services people want more efficiently, it produces goods and services that most people don’t want, for a price that is not market driven and often too high, and forces wide swaths of the population — at the point of a gun — to give up large percentages of their income to pay for things they don’t want, and often for other people. Free people to spend their money on things they want and the economy will thrive for those who produce goods and services that others desire.

I’ve studied economic theory in upper division econ courses at the University of California (at San Diego — professor Bear anyone?) that seemingly involved little more than crunching differential equations, but the misleadingly simplistic explanation above is what most are missing today.[/quote]

Thanks for that. I don’t really see any argument there supporting your your orignal comment, unless you’re claiming that spending on education is prohibited under the constitution and that 3/4 of a trillion dollars of defense spending is mandatory. Good luck with that one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=SK in CV][quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)[/quote]

Is this what happens when you stop teaching what the Constitution says and instead teach what judges, politicians, and media personalities say it says? And I never mentioned anything about specific spending levels. Perhaps you were trying some sort of Jedi mind trick right out of Star Wars (“these aren’t the droids you’re looking for”)?

Now I’ll give YOU a head start: taxing for and spending on the defence of the United States is actually in the Constitution. Anything related to the Department of Education, for example, is not. There are others. Read the document yourself and discover the richness of your national heritage.

We’ve now reached a point where the left’s position — as made clear through court decisions and acts of government — is that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses are so broad as to allow virtually unlimited government activity. If that were true, however, the rest of the Constitution would have been pointless.

As far as the economic issues, politicians would do well to read what I wrote in the thread about gold. So-called “experts” have gotten so wrapped up in economic models and theory that they’ve lost sight of the basics of how and why it all works. People provide goods and services that other people want. People trade their excess goods and services for others which they desire. Currency makes these transactions more convenient and reliable. Generally, not only does government provide the goods and services people want more efficiently, it produces goods and services that most people don’t want, for a price that is not market driven and often too high, and forces wide swaths of the population — at the point of a gun — to give up large percentages of their income to pay for things they don’t want, and often for other people. Free people to spend their money on things they want and the economy will thrive for those who produce goods and services that others desire.

I’ve studied economic theory in upper division econ courses at the University of California (at San Diego — professor Bear anyone?) that seemingly involved little more than crunching differential equations, but the misleadingly simplistic explanation above is what most are missing today.[/quote]

Thanks for that. I don’t really see any argument there supporting your your orignal comment, unless you’re claiming that spending on education is prohibited under the constitution and that 3/4 of a trillion dollars of defense spending is mandatory. Good luck with that one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=SK in CV][quote=faterikcartman]It’s pretty clear the Constitution is out the window when we’re discussing cutting things that are in the Constitution in favour of things which are not. And nary a concern that there is no longer a valid and observed compact setting forth the terms by which the people agree to be governed — or what that means.[/quote]

Precisely which things do you think should be cut because they are not in the Constitution and which should not be cut because they are in the constitution? (And I’ll give you a head start. The constitution does not specify any spending levels. For anything.)[/quote]

Is this what happens when you stop teaching what the Constitution says and instead teach what judges, politicians, and media personalities say it says? And I never mentioned anything about specific spending levels. Perhaps you were trying some sort of Jedi mind trick right out of Star Wars (“these aren’t the droids you’re looking for”)?

Now I’ll give YOU a head start: taxing for and spending on the defence of the United States is actually in the Constitution. Anything related to the Department of Education, for example, is not. There are others. Read the document yourself and discover the richness of your national heritage.

We’ve now reached a point where the left’s position — as made clear through court decisions and acts of government — is that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses are so broad as to allow virtually unlimited government activity. If that were true, however, the rest of the Constitution would have been pointless.

As far as the economic issues, politicians would do well to read what I wrote in the thread about gold. So-called “experts” have gotten so wrapped up in economic models and theory that they’ve lost sight of the basics of how and why it all works. People provide goods and services that other people want. People trade their excess goods and services for others which they desire. Currency makes these transactions more convenient and reliable. Generally, not only does government provide the goods and services people want more efficiently, it produces goods and services that most people don’t want, for a price that is not market driven and often too high, and forces wide swaths of the population — at the point of a gun — to give up large percentages of their income to pay for things they don’t want, and often for other people. Free people to spend their money on things they want and the economy will thrive for those who produce goods and services that others desire.

I’ve studied economic theory in upper division econ courses at the University of California (at San Diego — professor Bear anyone?) that seemingly involved little more than crunching differential equations, but the misleadingly simplistic explanation above is what most are missing today.[/quote]

Thanks for that. I don’t really see any argument there supporting your your orignal comment, unless you’re claiming that spending on education is prohibited under the constitution and that 3/4 of a trillion dollars of defense spending is mandatory. Good luck with that one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]I am not thrilled with the front the republicans are putting up and I have no faith in them…. I agree that the sacred cows will have to be slaughtered to get things under control.

SK I agree with you about putting america to work but I fail to see who wave the magic wand to make that happen. Put america to work doing what? Adding federal jobs? I am perplexed to see how the private sector will do that but I hope it does happen.

Right now I would be happy to see some simple progress on low hanging fruit.

Do we have to foot the legal bills for Fannie and Freddie executives who are under investigation? (175M tab)

Other tidbits found on the internet…

112M paid out by the irs in undeserved tax refunds to prisoners who filed fraudulent returns.

NASC paid a Stanford prof 250k to study how Americans use the internet to find love…Really? Will someone pay me 250k to say porn and match.com?

The VA paid out 175M each year to maintain buildings it does not use.

Vegas received 5.2M in federal grant to build the Neon Boneyard Par and Museum including 1.8M in 2010.

Anyways there are a ton of sites that have these lists. Whether they are true or not, I am not sure but even if half of them are true it is still a hell of alot of money.

I think regardless of whether you are liberal or conservative, it seems like there is some trimming that can be done.[/quote]

Just to clarify, my comment about putting America to work was not a policy recommendation. That ship has sailed. (The stimulus was too small to have the desired effect, and another one won’t happen, so it’s a moot point.) It was more general, if unemployement falls to pre-recession numbers, the deficit will go down.

The private sector will do it, but it will take time. The next 12 months new hiring will add 3 million new jobs, and if things progress as I suspect they will, another 5 million the following year. (keep in mind that somewhere around 1 million new jobs barely covers the net of new workers entering the workforce and older workers retiring.) I don’t know what we’re going to do with the roughly 5 million workers who used to build homes. It’s unlikely more than 1/2 that many will be needed any time in the next decade.

As to the low hanging fruit, I agree entirely. I suspect they’re only a tiny dent, except within the military budget. But they should be addressed nonetheless.

Like you, I have no way of knowing if those you listed are for real. My neighbor, a cell biologist with a lab at scripps, once had one of his projects at his previous lab identified as another rediculous government contract. The claim was something like millions of dollars being spent comparing chunky and creamy peanut butter. Apparently it did have something to do with some compound found in peanuts, but nothing to do with peanut butter. I have little doubt there is government waste. But I’d hesitate to argue about any particular program just because i read about it on the internets.

[Author]

Posts