[speechlesstx]

I have no problem in cutting defense spending period, so long as it doesn't jeopardize national security. I don't believe $2 trillion is wise to spend on Obamacare, a billion plus a year to the UN is too much and I darn sure bet we can reduce the federal payroll, which seems to be the only place where jobs are being created. Oh, and buying all those Chevy Volts? Put 'em in a base Ford Fiesta.

[excon]

I don't believe $2 trillion is wise to spend on Obamacare, a billion plus a year to the UN is to much and I darn sure bet we can reduce the federal payroll,

Hello again, Steve:

Whether you believe it or not, Obamacare is LAW and it WON'T be repealed. If you want to TALK, talk to me about something that we can ACTUALLY cut. You guys are good at symbolism, ala your cut, cap and balance. That's NOTHING more than a symbol, in that it has nothing to do with CUTTING.

Federal payroll?? Cool! Let's start with the DEA followed by the NSA, not forgetting the TSA, and let's throw in the prison guards as a bonus... If you want to trade the welfare to the UN, and the Education & Energy Department's, I'll go for it.

Yes, I STILL have the Iraq war in my back pocket, but I may not have to throw it in because I'll betcha we're getting close to being in balance.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I'm all for scrapping the Education and Energy departments so see, compromise is possible. We can cut back on the EPA, the IRS and yank most government credit cards and make them go back to getting competitive bids on darn near everything they buy.

[tomder55]

Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?
...
Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.

That's just speech being a 'science denier' again.

[paraclete]

This thread has descended into the rehlms of fantasy

[tomder55]

Stick around to see the convoluted pretzel twist that Congress eventually uses to solve this "crisis" . It will be the typical deception that the Republics in Congress usually falls for... tax increases now... spending "cuts" (if the rate of spending is targeted for 8% increase and it only goes up 6% it will be called a 2 percent cut) on some future undetermined date .

[paraclete]

stick around to see the convoluted pretzel twist that Congress eventually uses to solve this "crisis" . It will be the typical deception that the Republics in Congress ususally falls for .......tax increases now ....spending "cuts" (if the rate of spending is targetted for 8% increase and it only goes up 6% it will be called a 2 percent cut) on some future undetermined date .

You mean they haven't decided to just not adjust budgets for inflation, or agree on a no new hires in the public service policy, not very inventive these yanks. There are many ways to provide a cut without pain but then we have been doing it for years so we are ahead of the game

[talaniman]

I guess you don't have low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives, where you live.

[paraclete]

I guess you don't have low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives, where you live.

Of course we do, but we have taken some of their options out of the equation, we also have environmental loonies that I doubt you have to contend with. We have a convention in our Parliament where neither side restricts supply, because it means it would quickly be taken to a double dissolution and everyone is out on their ear and have to face the electorate. That can mean a massive shift in the balance of power. I think because of this we have generally some more reasonable people willing to settle for some gains.

What I see is you have developed some sort of double standard where it is okay to say we can have statutes on the books, we have budgets, we have programs but we can stop supply without repealing any of that

[talaniman]

We have those who are not interested in the common good, just there own good, but no worries, just because its exciting doesn't mean America will NOT handle its business, and do the right thing for itself.

I wouldn't bet against her.

[paraclete]

I wouldn't bet against her.

At this stage I would refrain from betting the odds are too short

[tomder55]

low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives

Don't worry... the way this debate is shaping I see this country being run by 2 statist parties ;one of leftist progressives v a party of left of center Repubics who's only claim to legitimacy is their contention that they can be better managers of the nanny-state. The Gag of 8 is planning to rubber stamp the President's hand selected deficit commission's recommendations .

[paraclete]

Hobson's choice then?

[NeedKarma]

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?

Oh, by the way that study was funded under Bush:
Gay Men Penis Size Study Funded By Taxpayer Dollars

The National Development and Research Institute received money from the NIH to conduct the study which began in 2006.

:D

[tomder55]

Does it matter who began the study ? It's a complete waste of money . No doubt it was a pork rider for some piece of legislation that was too important not to pass.

Hobson's choice then?

Yes a Hobson's choice and a Hobbes Choice.

[excon]

does it matter who began the study ? It's a complete waste of money .

Hello again, tom:

You'll excuse me if I DON'T support YOUR idea of what's good science...

excon

[tomder55]

You are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

[NeedKarma]

you are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

Is this better?

Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen A Day Of Service

[excon]

you are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

Hello again, tom:

I'm not a scientists. I don't know what they hope to find by studying gay dongs...

But, I DO know that somebody who DENIES the existence of evolution ISN'T the guy to get ANY scientific information from.

excon

[tomder55]

Yeah that's more brilliance. Since the 1990s the navy stopped building nuke powered surface ships except Carriers. That means there will be more demand for refueling capability . What is significant is that new standards call for 2 hulls for tankers ,and these ships were built single hulled before the standards were revised.
I say sell them to another country .A quick repaint of an emblem and they'd be good to go.