Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM

That being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years.  The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.

Only 10%, and for only 4 years.  I don't think that would even cover there bonus that's paid out. 

And as a seniors I would be happy get all that money back from SS entitlement  that I work for plus the interest like I got on my 401k and other investments over the years. 

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 01:33:59 PM

Only 10%, and for only 4 years.  I don't think that would even cover there bonus that's paid out. 

And as a seniors I would be happy get all that money back from SS entitlement  that I work for plus the interest like I got on my 401k and other investments over the years.

walks, good points.

You are right 10% will not do anything.  but a couple things to consider, so many people depend government jobs now doing more at once will send tens of thousands to unemployment and that will hurt entire families and kids college plans all kinds of things and the job market might not be able to absorb at least right away so we would need extended unemployment for those displaced, however, if we do this for four years now it starts to add up as Ronald Reagan said (more or less from memory) "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!"

I think we can agree this mess took decades to build it would be a shock to the nation to try to dismantle it too quickly but we do need a committed structure so that we don't fizzle out as we always tend to do when the next big reason to spend money comes along.

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 01:33:59 PM

Only 10%, and for only 4 years.  I don't think that would even cover there bonus that's paid out. 

And as a seniors I would be happy get all that money back from SS entitlement  that I work for plus the interest like I got on my 401k and other investments over the years.

ps...and if we commit to doing this annually over a period of time it adds up.  Carly Fiorina had a good point, we need ZERO Based Budgeting in all government agencies.  Defend EVERY LINE ITEM EVERY YEAR.  Right now if your budget was $XYZ Billion last year it starts out at $XYZ Billion for this year.

NO.  stop doing that.  Every agency should need to start every budget at ZERO and defend WHY they need every item.

Want to see the pork rise to the top that would do it.

I have government programs I oversee for my company.  Good programs that help our employees grow and learn new skills and have better lives.  But the agency frowns upon us if we don't spend all the money because if we can do it for less money that means their budget will be less next year.  That right there is messed up.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 12:12:55 PM

Thanks for your perspectives, Solar.  I never heard anyone say Gridlock was good.  But hearing that made me go "hmmm" and as I thought about it it makes sense if you think government is too involved as it is.  That kind of perspective is what I am looking for I had never thought of it that way before.


As far as immigration goes, I have heard some say we have as many as 23 million illegals, if we say half are good, pay taxes, work, do not break any laws other than the civil misdemeanor of entering the country illegally then most countries want people like that, so why don't we make some money off them??

If we allow them to stay and pay a fine we can generate enough money to secure the border and maintain it annually virtually in perpetuity.

Frankly, I think we are missing an opportunity here.  We cant round them all up.  They are here to stay.  Why not have them pay something to do it?

It's what we do. We are a, if not thee' standard bearer of Conservative thought on the web.

Wherein lies the problem, the only crisis is a diminishing of American culture under the guise of multiculturalism.
The law clearly states that any individual wanting to enter the country must give cause, must have a sponsor or prove they are self sufficient and have a skill in demand other than simple labor.
It was that longtime standard that brought the best and brightest minds from around the world, a shared sense of the understanding of independence, Freedom and Liberty. A want to share in the American dream.
What we have now is corporate greed in search of cheap labor, labor that happily competes with, and lowballs Americans entering the workforce.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 01:42:39 PM

walks, good points.

You are right 10% will not do anything.  but a couple things to consider, so many people depend government jobs now doing more at once will send tens of thousands to unemployment and that will hurt entire families and kids college plans all kinds of things and the job market might not be able to absorb at least right away so we would need extended unemployment for those displaced, however, if we do this for four years now it starts to add up as Ronald Reagan said (more or less from memory) "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!"

I think we can agree this mess took decades to build it would be a shock to the nation to try to dismantle it too quickly but we do need a committed structure so that we don't fizzle out as we always tend to do when the next big reason to spend money comes along.

I see so only big companies can layoff thousands and thousands of people over the years but not the government.   It's not a problem for the nongovernment people but it is for the government worker.   

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 02:08:57 PM

I see so only big companies can layoff thousands and thousands of people over the years but not the government.   It's not a problem for the nongovernment people but it is for the government worker.   

well, that is the free market.  and if a company is laying off due to real business reasons (bankruptcy, real business downturn) then we all understand that happens, but if the company is closing plants to move to Mexico then yeah, they should also be forced to cover job placement and extend unemployment because these families might not (most likely not) be able to find comparable jobs, especially if they are in jobs like Mining, or Automotive.

I'm just saying such a move would affect the economy and harm families through no fault of their own.  and such a decision would be self inflicted.  but unemployment would be relatively cheap considering the savings of 10% compounded over 4 years, that's about 34% reduction.  That would be significant.  In fact it might be too much too quick.

We have to be aware such cuts would affect people so we would want to put plans in place to help them find new jobs in the private sector, but the math IMO shows that we absolutely can do this.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 02:22:48 PM
well, that is the free market.  and if a company is laying off due to real business reasons (bankruptcy, real business downturn) then we all understand that happens, but if the company is closing plants to move to Mexico then yeah, they should also be forced to cover job placement and extend unemployment because these families might not (most likely not) be able to find comparable jobs, especially if they are in jobs like Mining, or Automotive.

I'm just saying such a move would affect the economy and harm families through no fault of their own.  and such a decision would be self inflicted.  but unemployment would be relatively cheap considering the savings of 10% compounded over 4 years, that's about 34% reduction.  That would be significant.  In fact it might be too much too quick.

We have to be aware such cuts would affect people so we would want to put plans in place to help them find new jobs in the private sector, but the math IMO shows that we absolutely can do this.

Can't for the government worker or will not. 

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 02:35:43 PM

Can't for the government worker or will not.

From my perspective we collectively spend too much time defending our individual immovable ideology rather than addressing the problems we face which are absolutely solvable if we act together.


course, I would say that.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 03:19:54 PM

From my perspective we collectively spend too much time defending our individual immovable ideology rather than addressing the problems we face which are absolutely solvable if we act together.


course, I would say that.

And I say the government can be more like big companies.  Layoff when need and cut programs when needed move people around to fill in when layoffs come around.  Cut all Bonus pay that they should not be getting for doing there job, there government worker.  If they would like a bonus let the go outside of government. 


Not keep adding.


"course" I myself feel they can cut 10 to 20% of government worker and we the taxpayer would not see much change from work flow.  IF they dump the worker that does not do a good job. 

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 04:02:56 PM

And I say the government can be more like big companies.  Layoff when need and cut programs when needed move people around to fill in when layoffs come around.  Cut all Bonus pay that they should not be getting for doing there job, there government worker.  If they would like a bonus let the go outside of government. 


Not keep adding.


"course" I myself feel they can cut 10 to 20% of government worker and we the taxpayer would not see much change from work flow.  IF they dump the
worker that does not do a good job.

Good point walks.


From my view though if we want good people (qualified) to work in government we need to pay them bonuses to the extent they might get in the private sector otherwise we get even worse performers.  That is one issue government competes with private business (as it should be) but that means government has to pay comparable but if they don't they need to add "something" better benefits, better retirement, ...something.  Otherwise the good people will not work for government and that would <fill in the blank> for all of us.

We definitely have a big problem of having a too big government, I have zero disagreement there!

I just don't understand why we cant work together to shrink it???  it might not be as small as some want but government can certainly be 30% smaller.  and that  would be meaningful to the nation's health.  and it would not have to affect the benefits received by those who need them, the disabled, seniors, etc.


We are not that far apart in what we all want our country to be it is only how we get there that seperates us.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 04:19:35 PM

We are not that far apart in what we all want our country to be it is only how we get there that seperates us.

Snip~

Quote
Total U.S. debt breaks $19 trillion mark: Total debt rises by $8.4 trillion in last 8 years and is on pace to hit $22 trillion by 2020.

snip~

QuoteIn fact, the entire debt foundation is built merely on the servicing of debt, not the actual payoff.

A good read.

http://www.mybudget360.com/total-us-debt-19-trillion-growth-of-us-public-debt/

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 04:51:56 PM

Snip~
snip~

A good read.

http://www.mybudget360.com/total-us-debt-19-trillion-growth-of-us-public-debt/

Oh I agree the debt has had little attention by both parties but we need to look at a couple things.

1. Reading Timothy Geithner's book "Stress Test" he gave a literal blow by blow description of how the financial crises unfolded, before he was the Treasury Secretary he was the Head of the New York Federal Reserve and during a meeting with Hank Paulson who was George Bush's Treasury Secretary and Ben Bernake who was the Fed Chairman Geithner was asked how much time we had while reviewing the books of AIG and he said "this could go at any minute" Bernake and Paulson asked how much time do we have?  Geithner responded " you don't understand what I said.  this could go at any minute."

It was so bad the EU said (more or less from memory) "If the US financial system goes they take us with them."


I think we forget how close we came to failing.  and that a massive influx of money WAS necessary to save our economy.  think about it.  If AIG had failed that means all credit in the US would have stopped.  No more credit cards everything would need to be paid in cash and since credit would be closed cash would have inflated hugely who knows how much, imagine you can buy nothing except with cash and now wild inflation would take place businesses would have stopped.

what business nowadays can operate without creidit?


it would have been the worst disaster ANY nation would have ever experienced.  and it would have affected the world.

I say we would have been thrown into a finaincial dark age.  retirees especially would have been decimated because government would not have been able to meet it obligations.

it would have been a real disaster.


George Bush knew this.  Which is why he and Paulson started TARP (which made a PROFIT for the nation) and why Obama continued along those lines.


we went to the edge and looked down.


we forget now, because things are pretty good but the financial system of the nation and ALL of Europe came very close to failing completely.  the only reaons it did not was the pumping of money into it which would not be possible under a gold standard which is why we were taken off it to begin with under FDR.

these actions saved the country.  some times we have to give credit to the other side.

Quote from: walkstall on July 17, 2016, 04:51:56 PM

Snip~
snip~

A good read.

http://www.mybudget360.com/total-us-debt-19-trillion-growth-of-us-public-debt/

ps...keep in  mind the debt is a big problem I am not suggesting we minimize it.  but if is less than what is was as a percentage of GDP after WWII.  and I would suggest we are fighting a battle just as equal as WWII maybe even greater.


Our country can easily fund this debt which is why neither party is screaming about this because they know it is not a real problem, we will GROW out of a lot of it like we did after WWII assuming we don't keep growing it.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 05:13:20 PM

Oh I agree the debt has had little attention by both parties but we need to look at a couple things.

1. Reading Timothy Geithner's book "Stress Test" he gave a literal blow by blow description of how the financial crises unfolded, before he was the Treasury Secretary he was the Head of the New York Federal Reserve and during a meeting with Hank Paulson who was George Bush's Treasury Secretary and Ben Bernake who was the Fed Chairman Geithner was asked how much time we had while reviewing the books of AIG and he said "this could go at any minute" Bernake and Paulson asked how much time do we have?  Geithner responded " you don't understand what I said.  this could go at any minute."

It was so bad the EU said (more or less from memory) "If the US financial system goes they take us with them."


I think we forget how close we came to failing.  and that a massive influx of money WAS necessary to save our economy.  think about it.  If AIG had failed that means all credit in the US would have stopped.  No more credit cards everything would need to be paid in cash and since credit would be closed cash would have inflated hugely who knows how much, imagine you can buy nothing except with cash and now wild inflation would take place businesses would have stopped.

what business nowadays can operate without creidit?


it would have been the worst disaster ANY nation would have ever experienced.  and it would have affected the world.

I say we would have been thrown into a finaincial dark age.  retirees especially would have been decimated because government would not have been able to meet it obligations.

it would have been a real disaster.


George Bush knew this.  Which is why he and Paulson started TARP (which made a PROFIT for the nation) and why Obama continued along those lines.


we went to the edge and looked down.


we forget now, because things are pretty good but the financial system of the nation and ALL of Europe came very close to failing completely.  the only reaons it did not was the pumping of money into it which would not be possible under a gold standard which is why we were taken off it to begin with under FDR.

these actions saved the country.  some times we have to give credit to the other side.

Walks, split this off to Finance, so as not to derail the OP.

Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 01:03:12 PM

I am a Kensyian Economist supporter so I believe governments function is to grow and pump money into the economy and cut taxes in times of crises, and then shrink and raise taxes in order to pay down debt during good times (like the 1990's) and prepare for the next crises.

We are good at the growing and spending part, both sides have tax and spend as their motto's.  But we are not as good at the shrinking part although, while still too bloated President Obama has shrunk the overall size of government since its high point during his first term.

But we do have to do more to reduce size AND cost.  We're not far apart in what we want, we just have different ways to go about getting it.

We'll start you off with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk