PDA

View Full Version : Could you cut 2.4% from your home budget per month?



luvmylabs23139
02-26-2013, 11:21 AM
A simple question. If you had to could you cut without starving or freezing cut a simple 2.4% from your total household budget? The rule is the total must be cut not every individual line item. So for example there is a set amount you must pay for a car loan or a mortgage, the required payment.
DH and I had been listening to the clowns in DC over the weekend figured out simply how much the 2.4% would be for us based on average monthly spending and then created our personal cuts. It was really easy. So why can't the feds do it?
Have to admit after 2 days of 33 degrees and raining we were a bit bored.
Oddly enough neither one of us had the extra monthly principle payment on the house we make anywhere near the top of our lists and it would have made up the 2.4% multiple times.

mjh345
02-26-2013, 12:35 PM
A simple question. If you had to could you cut without starving or freezing cut a simple 2.4% from your total household budget? The rule is the total must be cut not every individual line item. So for example there is a set amount you must pay for a car loan or a mortgage, the required payment.
DH and I had been listening to the clowns in DC over the weekend figured out simply how much the 2.4% would be for us based on average monthly spending and then created our personal cuts. It was really easy. So why can't the feds do it?
Have to admit after 2 days of 33 degrees and raining we were a bit bored.
Oddly enough neither one of us had the extra monthly principle payment on the house we make anywhere near the top of our lists and it would have made up the 2.4% multiple times.
It is a simple, but stupid question Luv. Obviously I could cut 2.4%
However the simple fact is that the budget is way more than 2.4% in the red.
If my personal budget were as much in arrears as the US budget is, then the question I would have to answer is not how I would make a pittance of a 2.4% cut but rather how I could balance my budget
. My & your creditors would insist on it. Of course I don't have the stopgap option of a fictitious central banking fiat money suppy, with endless QE 1, 2, 3....etc
Ultimately we taxpayers are the ultimate debtor in this charade. The bill is ours. I dont know about you but I dont like the idea of taking the little lady out to dinner at a moderately priced restaurant, that is well within myubudget. When it comes time to pay what I assumed would be a bill of approximately $100 Im told that the tab is actually $2000, because added to my tab was some wasteful gluttony by my elected reps in the back room. Id be outraged!!.
While it is a stupid analogy, there is a basis in reality, and I am outraged!!!

We all should be outraged, and demand a stop NOW!!!! Those gluttonous Congresscritters aint gonna stop their gluttony. We have to do it for them. BALANCED BUDGET AMMENDMENT!!!
Im amused, outraged and amazed in listening to the Reps & Dems screaming the sky is falling and pointing the finger at each other. Yet the Sequestration was mandated by a BI-PARTISAN comitteee, and the debt limit has been asked for and raised numerous times by both Dems & Reps. It is "needed" when their party is in power; yet an "outrage" when the other party is in power.

You sheeple like t5o make fun of Franco, but you njever can or will argue that he is wrong.
It may be time for you all to pay attention to what he is saying. Remember a famous definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result

huntinman
02-26-2013, 12:50 PM
It is a simple, but stupid question Luv. Obviously I could cut 2.4%
However the simple fact is that the budget is way more than 2.4% in the red.
If my personal budget were as much in arrears as the US budget is, then the question I would have to answer is not how I would make a pittance of a 2.4% cut but rather how I could balance my budget
. My & your creditors would insist on it. Of course I don't have the stopgap option of a fictitious central banking fiat money suppy, with endless QE 1, 2, 3....etc
Ultimately we taxpayers are the ultimate debtor in this charade. The bill is ours. I dont know about you but I dont like the idea of taking the little lady out to dinner at a moderately priced restaurant, that is well within myubudget. When it comes time to pay what I assumed would be a bill of approximately $100 Im told that the tab is actually $2000, because added to my tab was some wasteful gluttony by my elected reps in the back room. Id be outraged!!.
While it is a stupid analogy, there is a basis in reality, and I am outraged!!!

We all should be outraged, and demand a stop NOW!!!! Those gluttonous Congresscritters aint gonna stop their gluttony. We have to do it for them. BALANCED BUDGET AMMENDMENT!!!
Im amused, outraged and amazed in listening to the Reps & Dems screaming the sky is falling and pointing the finger at each other. Yet the Sequestration was mandated by a BI-PARTISAN comitteee, and the debt limit has been asked for and raised numerous times by both Dems & Reps. It is "needed" when their party is in power; yet an "outrage" when the other party is in power.

You sheeple like t5o make fun of Franco, but you njever can or will argue that he is wrong.
It may be time for you all to pay attention to what he is saying. Remember a famous definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result

So what's your proposal?

luvmylabs23139
02-26-2013, 12:56 PM
It is a simple, but stupid question Luv. Obviously I could cut 2.4%
However the simple fact is that the budget is way more than 2.4% in the red.
If my personal budget were as much in arrears as the US budget is, then the question I would have to answer is not how I would make a pittance of a 2.4% cut but rather how I could balance my budget
. My & your creditors would insist on it. Of course I don't have the stopgap option of a fictitious central banking fiat money suppy, with endless QE 1, 2, 3....etc
Ultimately we taxpayers are the ultimate debtor in this charade. The bill is ours. I dont know about you but I dont like the idea of taking the little lady out to dinner at a moderately priced restaurant, that is well within myubudget. When it comes time to pay what I assumed would be a bill of approximately $100 Im told that the tab is actually $2000, because added to my tab was some wasteful gluttony by my elected reps in the back room. Id be outraged!!.
While it is a stupid analogy, there is a basis in reality, and I am outraged!!!

We all should be outraged, and demand a stop NOW!!!! Those gluttonous Congresscritters aint gonna stop their gluttony. We have to do it for them. BALANCED BUDGET AMMENDMENT!!!
Im amused, outraged and amazed in listening to the Reps & Dems screaming the sky is falling and pointing the finger at each other. Yet the Sequestration was mandated by a BI-PARTISAN comitteee, and the debt limit has been asked for and raised numerous times by both Dems & Reps. It is "needed" when their party is in power; yet an "outrage" when the other party is in power.

You sheeple like t5o make fun of Franco, but you njever can or will argue that he is wrong.
It may be time for you all to pay attention to what he is saying. Remember a famous definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result

It's not really a stupid question because occording to King Obama the world is coming to and end over 2.4 %. The 2.4 % is just a nibble at the bs fat. HOw much did it just cost the taxpayers for the chosen one to fly to newport news for what???? Total waste of taxpayer money.
Lets just take the example of your $100 dinner. If you had to (that being the key) you could provide your wife with just as much if not more enjoyable meal for her (you would have to do a bit of grilling) for half the price. BUT a simple budget cut with no major hardship. Heck if hubby spent half the money and did all the work it would be a great treat rather than a nice treat not because of the cash but rather the effort!

HPL
02-26-2013, 01:00 PM
Wouldn't really like it, but sure.

Jason Glavich
02-26-2013, 01:27 PM
The problem is bigger than just the 2.4% but I could cut that easily by cutting out my own entitlements. The government does things backwards, they get a contract with a company to provide supplies to them, that company charges a higher rate than retail, as long as they hold the contract it stays that way. The company I work for does the same. So one day they were trying to buy some network cables, the company we have a contract with charges 6.95 for a cable, I can buy them quickly online with no contract for .25, When we bind ourselves into these contracts we force ourselves to pay more the government does the same thing. Except they do it on a much larger scale for everything from staples to tanks and aircraft. They could cut it by simply spending the money smarter. It is the same as when I go to the store I want the buy the name brand but the best value is the store brand, so which should I buy when on a budget?

On top of all of that they cannot cut a huge portion of the budget because it is considered madatory spending, so they have to cut from the rest, and they will always choose the highest profile pieces because it will get the most public pressure to make sure it doesn't happen.

mjh345
02-26-2013, 01:30 PM
So what's your proposal?

Reread my post and I think it is pretty obvious what my proposal is
.

Now what is your proposal?

huntinman
02-26-2013, 01:38 PM
Reread my post and I think it is pretty obvious what my proposal is
.

Now what is your proposal?

I don't think it so obvious... You were so busy telling others how stupid they were and calling them (us) sheeple, I don't think you offered a solution. Sure you pointed out the obvious. Hell, we all can do that.


My proposal is to put more people in office like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul (believe it or not) who are not afraid of the establishment. Vote out ALL of the old big spenders and get the govts house in order before it is too late. But, unfortunately it's going to take a long time and it may be too late already since Obama got re-elected.

road kill
02-26-2013, 02:54 PM
It is a simple, but stupid question Luv. Obviously I could cut 2.4%
However the simple fact is that the budget is way more than 2.4% in the red.
If my personal budget were as much in arrears as the US budget is, then the question I would have to answer is not how I would make a pittance of a 2.4% cut but rather how I could balance my budget
. My & your creditors would insist on it. Of course I don't have the stopgap option of a fictitious central banking fiat money suppy, with endless QE 1, 2, 3....etc
Ultimately we taxpayers are the ultimate debtor in this charade. The bill is ours. I dont know about you but I dont like the idea of taking the little lady out to dinner at a moderately priced restaurant, that is well within myubudget. When it comes time to pay what I assumed would be a bill of approximately $100 Im told that the tab is actually $2000, because added to my tab was some wasteful gluttony by my elected reps in the back room. Id be outraged!!.
While it is a stupid analogy, there is a basis in reality, and I am outraged!!!

We all should be outraged, and demand a stop NOW!!!! Those gluttonous Congresscritters aint gonna stop their gluttony. We have to do it for them. BALANCED BUDGET AMMENDMENT!!!
Im amused, outraged and amazed in listening to the Reps & Dems screaming the sky is falling and pointing the finger at each other. Yet the Sequestration was mandated by a BI-PARTISAN comitteee, and the debt limit has been asked for and raised numerous times by both Dems & Reps. It is "needed" when their party is in power; yet an "outrage" when the other party is in power.

You sheeple like t5o make fun of Franco, but you njever can or will argue that he is wrong.
It may be time for you all to pay attention to what he is saying. Remember a famous definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result

I would never pretend to be as smart as you or Franco............

No one is being asked to take a cut.

The INCREASE in budget will be reduced 2.5%.

But then, you and Franco already knew that.........


Sheeple regards..................

Franco
02-26-2013, 03:06 PM
It is a simple, but stupid question Luv. Obviously I could cut 2.4%
However the simple fact is that the budget is way more than 2.4% in the red.
If my personal budget were as much in arrears as the US budget is, then the question I would have to answer is not how I would make a pittance of a 2.4% cut but rather how I could balance my budget
. My & your creditors would insist on it. Of course I don't have the stopgap option of a fictitious central banking fiat money suppy, with endless QE 1, 2, 3....etc
Ultimately we taxpayers are the ultimate debtor in this charade. The bill is ours. I dont know about you but I dont like the idea of taking the little lady out to dinner at a moderately priced restaurant, that is well within myubudget. When it comes time to pay what I assumed would be a bill of approximately $100 Im told that the tab is actually $2000, because added to my tab was some wasteful gluttony by my elected reps in the back room. Id be outraged!!.
While it is a stupid analogy, there is a basis in reality, and I am outraged!!!

We all should be outraged, and demand a stop NOW!!!! Those gluttonous Congresscritters aint gonna stop their gluttony. We have to do it for them. BALANCED BUDGET AMMENDMENT!!!
Im amused, outraged and amazed in listening to the Reps & Dems screaming the sky is falling and pointing the finger at each other. Yet the Sequestration was mandated by a BI-PARTISAN comitteee, and the debt limit has been asked for and raised numerous times by both Dems & Reps. It is "needed" when their party is in power; yet an "outrage" when the other party is in power.

You sheeple like t5o make fun of Franco, but you njever can or will argue that he is wrong.
It may be time for you all to pay attention to what he is saying. Remember a famous definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result

MJH, I think the part about a Balanced Budget Amendment went over the heads of many here on POTUS;-) Afterall, many here supported Romney and his protege who only wanted to grow the Deficit by 5 to 7 TRILLION over the enxt few years. Notice how they avoid that little fact?

Thay can't debate with facts because they know they are still a part of the status quo. They are Statis and still think the Repubs establishment can somehow save them. That is why when you read their responses and responces by some others, one realizes that they have yet to identify the problems.

road kill
02-26-2013, 03:11 PM
Who authored this atrocity??






Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester

Posted by Glenn Kesslerat 06:02 AM ET, 10/26/2012



“The sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”

— President Obama, in the third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012



As the saying goes, success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan. And if there ever is an orphan in Washington these days, it is that odd duck known as “sequestration.”

We’ve earlier written that there are bipartisan fingerprints over the looming defense cuts that Mitt Romney has sought to pin on President Obama. Now, in the final presidential debate, Obama sought to toss the hot potato of sequestration — the process that is forcing those defense cuts and reductions in domestic spending — into Congress’s lap.

Fortunately, there is a detailed and contemporaneous look at the debt ceiling deal that led to the current budget crunch: Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.” The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president’s statement.





The Facts


The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward’s book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.



Page 215 (July 12, 2011):


They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.

“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

Short version: The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with Sperling calling it an “automatic sequester,” though initially it was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Boehner was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool.





Page 326 (July 26):


At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.

“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.

“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically.

“Sequestration.”

Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.

What would the impact be?

They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.

Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.

“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.

That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.

“I get it,” Reid said finally.

Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.





Page 339:


Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seems tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from Defense, and the other half from domestic programs. There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense.

Short version: This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.





Page 344 (July 30):


The president and [White House chief of staff William] Daley were on the patio outside Daley’s office with [adviser David] Plouffe, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner, Lew and Sperling when they got word that Biden was making progress with [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell. It looked as if Republicans were ready to agree to a Defense/non-Defense sequester in the trigger.

Plouffe couldn’t believe it. These guys were so afraid of increasing revenues that they’re willing to put Defense on the chopping block? Republicans’ revenue phobia was so intense that they would sell out the Pentagon.

“This is a deal we can probably live with,” Obama said, willing to do almost anything to salvage something and prevent catastrophe.

Short version: Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.





Page 346 (July 30):


At 9 p.m. on Saturday night, Boehner’s staff got their first real look at the proposal negotiated by Biden and McConnell.

Loper had been in regular contact with [McConnell deputy chief of staff] Rohit Kumar about the progress of the negotiations, but now he had paper, so he drafted the Republican staff from the House Budget Committee and they pulled an all-nighter trying to understand the plan and to identify its shortcomings.

It was a challenge, because nobody in the office had operated under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings rules, which dated back to the 1980s. Loper spent the night trying to get his arms around the proposal.

Short version: Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.

We asked the White House if officials disputed any part of Woodward’s narrative and did not get a response. Spokeswoman Amy Brundage issued the following statement:

“The only reason that a sequester is in place is because both sides in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — voted for it in the Budget Control Act to force Congress to act. In fact, 2 out of 3 Republicans in Congress — including Congressman Ryan — voted for it and many praised it at the time. The President was making the point that the sequester was never intended to be policy, and that Congress must act to replace it with balanced deficit reduction. They can and should do that.

“In addition, the notion that we wanted the sequester is false. The fact of the matter is that we wanted a trigger that included balance and specifically asked more from the wealthiest individuals on the revenue side. Congressional Republicans refused.”







The Pinocchio Test


No one disputes the fact that no one wanted sequestration, or that ultimately a bipartisan vote in Congress led to passage of the Budget Control Act. But the president categorically said that sequestration was “something that Congress has proposed.”

Woodward’s detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.

In sum: Gene Sperling brought up the idea of a sequester, while Jack Lew sold Harry Reid on the idea and then decided to use the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman language (which he knew from his days of working for Tip O’Neill) as a template for sequester. The proposal was so unusual for Republicans that staffers had to work through the night to understand it.

Oddly, Lew in Tampa on Thursday, publicly asserted the opposite: “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger…. [It] was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure at the end.”

This prompted Woodward to go over his notes and interviews once again, to make sure he had gotten it right.

“After reviewing all the interviews and the extensive material I have on this issue, it looks like President Obama told a whopper,” Woodward said. “Based on what Jack Lew said in Florida today, I have asked the White House to correct the record.”

[B] We had been wavering between Three and Four Pinocchios. But in light’s of Lew’s decision to doubledown on Obama’s claim, we agree it’s a whopper.

road kill
02-26-2013, 03:17 PM
MJH, I think the part about a Balanced Budget Amendment went over the heads of many here on POTUS;-) Afterall, many here supported Romney and his protege who only wanted to grow the Deficit by 5 to 7 TRILLION over the enxt few years. Notice how they avoid that little fact?

Thay can't debate with facts because they know they are still a part of the status quo. They are Statis and still think the Repubs establishment can somehow save them. That is why when you read their responses and responces by some others, one realizes that they have yet to identify the problems.

The only debatable fact in your post is wether or not it went over our heads.
Other than that, how does one debate a Franco ASSUMPTION!!!:shock:

mjh345
02-26-2013, 03:22 PM
I would never pretend to be as smart as you or Franco............

No one is being asked to take a cut.

The INCREASE in budget will be reduced 2.5%.

But then, you and Franco already knew that.........


Sheeple regards..................
Instead of empty rhetoric or shock at a feigned insult, do you have a proposal Stan?

road kill
02-26-2013, 03:28 PM
CUT SPENDING!!!!

TERM LIMITS!!!!

ELIMINATE OBAMA CARE!!!

Get OUT of Afgahnistan!!!!
Open drilling in the gulf!!!!
BUILD the PIPELINE!!!!

But you aren't even being honest about my post.
It is not empty rhetoric, that was Franco's post that was vapid of any content.


There are NO CUTS!!!!!!

It is a reduction in increases.

Let's say you are making $3,700 a month.
I give you a pay increase of $1,500 a month.
But then we realize you have bills to be paid so I reduce you raise by 2.5%.
That equals $37.50.
So in stead of going from $3,700 a month to $5,200 a month you will be going from $3,700 a month to $5,162.50.

I know you will question my numbers and dismiss the premise, but this comes from a pretty solid source.
AS JD says, Google it!!!!

mjh345
02-26-2013, 03:39 PM
CUT SPENDING!!!!

TERM LIMITS!!!!!

But you aren't even being honest about my post.
It is not empty rhetoric, that was Franco's post that was vapid of any content.


There are NO CUTS!!!!!!

It is a reduction in increases.

Let's say you are making $3,700 a month.
I give you a pay increase of $1,500 a month.
But then we realize you have bills to be paid so I reduce you raise by 2.5%.
That equals $37.50.
So in stead of going from $3,700 a month to $5,200 a month you will be going from $3,700 a month to $5,162.50.

I know you will question my numbers and dismiss the premise, but this comes from a pretty solid source.
AS JD says, Google it!!!!
Dont need to google it Stan.
What do you mean nIm not being honest about your post. Show me where I said this would decrease the size of govt.
"CUT SPENDING" & "TERM LIMITS" thats all you got. The powers that be love it when you sucker into their catchphrases. Most if not all of these Congresscritters campaign on your little sound bite catchphrases. You vote them back into office, where they go back to spending like drunken sailors. Exept drunken sailors spend money they saved up while they were out to sea. These Congresscritters are spending money we dont have. Then they bitch about paying the bill when it comes time to raise the debt limit for the umpteenth time. But then you vote em back minto office again because "ITS THE OTHER PARTYS FAULT"

Quit hiding behind an obvious truth and unfullfilled campaighn rhetoric & come up with a proposal

Franco
02-26-2013, 03:43 PM
CUT SPENDING!!!!

TERM LIMITS!!!!

Get OUT of Afgahnistan!!!!
Open drilling in the gulf!!!!
BUILD the PIPELINE!!!!

But you aren't even being honest about my post.
It is not empty rhetoric, that was Franco's post that was vapid of any content.


There are NO CUTS!!!!!!

It is a reduction in increases.

Let's say you are making $3,700 a month.
I give you a pay increase of $1,500 a month.
But then we realize you have bills to be paid so I reduce you raise by 2.5%.
That equals $37.50.
So in stead of going from $3,700 a month to $5,200 a month you will be going from $3,700 a month to $5,162.50.

I know you will question my numbers and dismiss the premise, but this comes from a pretty solid source.
AS JD says, Google it!!!!

Did you ever see Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal?

road kill
02-26-2013, 03:53 PM
Dont need to google it Stan.
What do you mean nIm not being honest about your post. Show me where I said this would decrease the size of govt.
"CUT SPENDING" & "TERM LIMITS" thats all you got. The powers that be love it when you sucker into their catchphrases. Most if not all of these Congresscritters campaign on your little sound bite catchphrases. You vote them back into office, where they go back to spending like drunken sailors. Exept drunken sailors spend money they saved up while they were out to sea. These Congresscritters are spending money we dont have. Then they bitch about paying the bill when it comes time to raise the debt limit for the umpteenth time. But then you vote em back minto office again because "ITS THE OTHER PARTYS FAULT"

Quit hiding behind an obvious truth and unfullfilled campaighn rhetoric & come up with a proposal

Oh, OK Marc............

You asked me, I answered with what I honestly believe could change things QUICKLY,(knowing what was coming) and as is your and Franco's predictable style, you crticize!!

That's the way you roll.

But I am the one with empty rhetoric.:rolleyes:

road kill
02-26-2013, 03:55 PM
Did you ever see Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal?

Misread that earlier.

I have read most of it.

I would take it in a heartbeat over what is happening now!!!!

mjh345
02-26-2013, 03:59 PM
I don't think it so obvious... You were so busy telling others how stupid they were and calling them (us) sheeple, I don't think you offered a solution. Sure you pointed out the obvious. Hell, we all can do that.


My proposal is to put more people in office like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul (believe it or not) who are not afraid of the establishment. Vote out ALL of the old big spenders and get the govts house in order before it is too late. But, unfortunately it's going to take a long time and it may be too late already since Obama got re-elected.
Your proposal is moot, since you live in Tenn you can only vote for Tenn candidates.
Additionally, if we werent so partisan it wouldnt take a long time. If we werent so hardwired to vote back in our incumbents. But Rep districts keep sending Rep incumbents back & Dem districts keep sending Dems back.

If we voted all incumbents out of office i believe it would shake em up pretty good, In less than 2 years we could replace all 435 House members and a 1/3 of the Senate. Don't you think the rest of the Senate might wake up? Then there is a chance that they would listen to us as opposed to the lobbyists who fund them.
But both the Ds & Rs are pretty confident that aint gonna happen. History has proven them right Congress has an 8% approval rating, but in contested elections the incumbent almost always prevails Party partisanship prevails in spite of the fact they both are equally to blame for the mess we are in they know that the sheeple will keep voting em back in over and over again

Franco
02-26-2013, 04:09 PM
Misread that earlier.

I have read most of it.

I would take it in a heartbeat over what is happening now!!!!

You typed in bold letter; Cut Spending!!!

Yet, you supported a candidate that has no intention of cutting spending. Unless, you consider increasing the Deficit by 5-7Trillion as stopping the spending.

MJH is correct. Politicians don't pay attention to letter or phone calls. The only weapon we have is the vote. And, as long as people continue to vote for the status quo, nothing will change!

Marvin S
02-26-2013, 04:24 PM
You sheeple like t5o make fun of Franco, but you njever can or will argue that he is wrong.

Marc - We do not make fun of Franco - We are making fun of his blind following of one of the guys who started the problem - His messiah had a lifetime voting record of around the 60 percentile on Club for Growth - this has been pointed out to Franco & he ignores it though facts are facts - saying one thing & doing another is what congress critters are famous for - being able to BS guys like Franco is something else they are famous for - Club for Growth's only issue is overspending! Club for Growth was started by Stephen Moore who now writes regularly for the WSJ on overspending.

I think you are probably intelligent enough to get that, Franco apparently is not.

BTW, too much wine when you typed & proofread that sentence. Or just fat fingers :-P.

roseberry
02-26-2013, 04:29 PM
If we voted all incumbents out of office i believe it would shake em up pretty good, In less than 2 years we could replace all 435 House members and a 1/3 of the Senate. Don't you think the rest of the Senate might wake up? Then there is a chance that they would listen to us as opposed to the lobbyists who fund them.


it is an admirable and romantic notion that our nation's problems can be cured with voting. at this point only civil war, revolution and about 600 uses of a nice sharp guillotine are required for any substantive change. but hey.....i am willing to try voting another time or two?

Franco
02-26-2013, 04:41 PM
Marc - We do not make fun of Franco - We are making fun of his blind following of one of the guys who started the problem - His messiah had a lifetime voting record of around the 60 percentile on Club for Growth - this has been pointed out to Franco & he ignores it though facts are facts - saying one thing & doing another is what congress critters are famous for - being able to BS guys like Franco is something else they are famous for - Club for Growth's only issue is overspending! Club for Growth was started by Stephen Moore who now writes regularly for the WSJ on overspending.

I think you are probably intelligent enough to get that, Franco apparently is not.

BTW, too much wine when you typed & proofread that sentence. Or just fat fingers :-P.

Marv, you are not being honest again;-)


Ron Paul's lifetime score is 87% with you hair growth for men club.
Here it is;http://www.clubforgrowth.org/lawmakers/?state=TX

Marv, ever think that your steadfast support of the status quo might be more of a problem than the solution?

Marvin S
02-26-2013, 05:02 PM
Marv, you are not being honest again;-)


Ron Paul's lifetime score is 87% with you hair growth for men club.

dON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, LOOK IT UP ON THEIR WEBSITE!

Franco - you missed lifetime , a 1 year record don't count, but 87% for even a year is nothing to crow about. I've pointed this out to you before & you choose to put your head in the sand :(.

Dan Storts
02-26-2013, 07:04 PM
Franco - you missed lifetime , a 1 year record don't count, but 87% for even a year is nothing to crow about. I've pointed this out to you before & you choose to put your head in the sand :(.


Ron Paul lower rating was attributed to increasing the pork for constitutes. He believed, and I personally believe this to a point, why should my constitutes pay for all the pork in Nancy Pelosi district and they get nothing. Thus, he added pork to bills for his district.

Franco
02-26-2013, 07:14 PM
Franco - you missed lifetime , a 1 year record don't count, but 87% for even a year is nothing to crow about. I've pointed this out to you before & you choose to put your head in the sand :(.

Poor attempt to throw up a smoke screen Marv. You said 60% and since the hair growth club for men has been rating Congressmen, he has never scorded below 82%!

huntinman
02-26-2013, 07:48 PM
Ron Paul lower rating was attributed to increasing the pork for constitutes. He believed, and I personally believe this to a point, why should my constitutes pay for all the pork in Nancy Pelosi district and they get nothing. Thus, he added pork to bills for his district.

Very few that don't. And I'm not defending RP. But the pork is a huge problem... That attitude is driving us to the poor house.

Dan Storts
02-26-2013, 08:06 PM
Very few that don't. And I'm not defending RP. But the pork is a huge problem... That attitude is driving us to the poor house.

At least the money is staying is the United States and not going to foreign countries.

huntinman
02-26-2013, 08:45 PM
At least the money is staying is the United States and not going to foreign countries.

Not quite... Some of them have pet projects in other places like the Dominican Republic. Menendez?

Franco
02-26-2013, 09:33 PM
Not quite... Some of them have pet projects in other places like the Dominican Republic. Menendez?

What does Menendez have to do with Ron Paul? Besides, RP is retired! His unheeded warning of our economy, poor monetary policy, Foreign Policy, SS are all of today's major problems. Give him credit for defining and starting the dialog that is debated today!

huntinman
02-26-2013, 09:52 PM
What does Menendez have to do with Ron Paul? Besides, RP is retired! His unheeded warning of our economy, poor monetary policy, Foreign Policy, SS are all of today's major problems. Give him credit for defining and starting the dialog that is debated today!

I don't know. Never said he had anything to do with Ron Paul. Dan made a comment about money from pet projects staying in the country. I provided an example of one elected pervert that has pet projects with govt money being spent outside the country. Try to keep up. Not everything is about Ron Paul, thank God.