Obama '08?

@parados,

Squirt receptacle, did you read the article?

Have someone... preferably an adult, read it to you.
A $1.6 trillion deficit boost, and the uninsured will still be with us.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

There are several problems with that Yankee.
One person's needed government expenditure is another's boondoggle. It has always been that way and always will be. The US government isn't pretty and will never be efficient. It requires compromises that cost money. The problem is some people think they should be able to control everything in a democracy. That will never be the case.

As to cuts in the government, where were you during the Clinton presidency? The number of federal employees was reduced in most departments, Justice being the major one that wasn't shrunk.

It seems Bush grew the government to its highest level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/html/ExecBranch.asp

When we start talking about which party actually has reduced government, most people are in for a surprise. The hard decision is cutting programs that you like Yankee. Which program do you support that you are willing to cut? This is a question I often ask and most people are happy to cut programs that don't benefit them while defending anything they use as necessary.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Hey squirt, after all you are obviously just a drip under pressure, the 1.6 trillion deficit is NOT all Obama's fault. The deficit was over 600 billion before Obama took office. Let me show you the math..

1.6 trillion deficit
- 600 billion deficit as of Jan 21, 2009
_____________
1 trillion

Obama can't be blamed for trillions in debt Squirt. Your statement was a lie. A fourth grader can do the math.

"projected" is not the same thing as debt.

0 Replies

The Clinton Administration ended many years ago.

The issues we face today are Mr. Obama's to handle.

If neither "party" wants to make the "tough decision" you suggest, then why should the taxpayers bear the cost of thier inefficiency?

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

The Clinton Administration ended many years ago.

The issues we face today are Mr. Obama's to handle.

Right.

Quote:

If neither "party" wants to make the "tough decision" you suggest, then why should the taxpayers bear the cost of thier inefficiency?

I didn't see which parts of government that benefit you that you are willing to cut.....

Since you aren't willing to cut government, then you will have to pay for it.

Here is one program I support -
1. SS and medicare should be means tested. (If that happens it probably means I would have my SS cut and I am willing to make that sacrifice.)

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Quote:

If neither "party" wants to make the "tough decision" you suggest, then why should the taxpayers bear the cost of thier inefficiency?

Why on earth would a politician make a tough decision if you are not going to support him? Step up to the plate here Yankee. Put your money where your mouth is. Make your own tough decision that you would support a politician if they did it.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I didn't see which parts of government that benefit you that you are willing to cut.....

I accept your challenge. Here is some easy things to me that can be done domestically

Agree with you, means test SSI.

Eliminate Farm subsidies

Eliminate HomeLand Security Dept

Merge FBI/CIA/NSA

Consolidate US Border/ATF/National Guard

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Quote:

Eliminate Farm subsidies

Are you a farmer?

Like I said. People are always willing to eliminate programs that don't benefit them.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Quote:

Eliminate HomeLand Security Dept

Merge FBI/CIA/NSA

Consolidate US Border/ATF/National Guard

How will any of these save money? You still need the same personnel doing the work. It is only moving the names around.

1 Reply

@parados,

No. I support President Obamas position to eliminate this.

You do not?

1 Reply

@parados,

There is redundancy and duplication within that areas.

I never understood why we needed a Homeland Department when we already have a National Guard, FBI, Border Patrol.

Homeland Security was this Govt's knee jerk reaction to 9-11 to make the people think they are doing something.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

I asked what benefited YOU that you are willing to cut. You are doing the same thing I said most people do. They aren't willing to cut anything that benefits them. Until you cut something that benefits you why would anyone agree to cut something that benefits them. It's called compromise Yankee. You have to be willing to give up something so the other person will give up something.

If your entire argument of cutting the government is based solely on cutting other people's programs then you aren't contributing anything and no one will be willing to give up something.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Could you tell me what the redundancy is?

The Border Patrol is a full time job. The National Guard is a weekend a month job.

The FBI investigates crimes. The CIA does spy work overseas and can't work in the US.

I agree, Homeland Security was a knee jerk reaction. But the Patriot Act was an even bigger jerk reaction. Homeland security was an attempt to put the FBI, domestic agencies and CIA under one umbrella. It took too many departments like FEMA and changed their focus making them less efficient.

As always, in reducing the government, the devil is in the details. We already see an increase in crimes because the FBI was moved into terror investigations and away from it's criminal work.

1 Reply

@parados,

You are becoming an annoyance and impossible to communicate with.

I am a retired WW2 Vet who needs no Govt services, thankfully (so far anyway). I do not need SSI and I agreed with you it should be means tested.

So now you know I am willing to give up something.

You do not act old enough to get SSI.

So exactly what are you willing to "give up?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The FBI investigates crimes. The CIA does spy work overseas and can't work in the US.

You have no idea, do you?

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
The FBI investigates crimes. The CIA does spy work overseas and can't work in the US.

You have no idea, do you?

It makes sense for these functions to be separated, even if that difference is not as hard and fast as they pretend. It also doesn't make sense to put the NSA under the umbrella of either of these agencies.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It makes sense for these functions to be separated, even if that difference is not as hard and fast as they pretend.

Really? Why does it makes sense if the "difference is not as hard and fast"?

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
It makes sense for these functions to be separated, even if that difference is not as hard and fast as they pretend.

Really? Why does it makes sense if the "difference is not as hard and fast"?

Because what we are discussing are two extremely different things: the investigation of crimes on the Federal level, and the collection of intelligence to be used in our Foreign policy.

The CIA doesn't investigate crimes. It looks for information. So why should it be combined with a criminal investigation unit? It doesn't have much to do with it at all. However, every now and then the CIA investigates foreigners living in America, or Americans who are doing business with foreign sources; so sometimes the rules aren't as hard-and-fast as they could be.

But to propose merging the two is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of both the function and structure of these agencies. It certainly wouldn't save any money at all. So why do it?

It was a shallow response on your part to Parados' comment about cutting costs - not a reasoned plan to move us forward in a positive fashion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The President is not winning the hearts and minds of many in the medical profession with his universal healthcare plan.

Quote:

Obama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare
David Whelan
6.18.09

Dr. David Scheiner took care of Obama for 22 years. But they don't see eye-to-eye on how to fix the health care system.

David Scheiner, an internist based in the Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park, has a diverse practice of lower-income adults from the nearby housing projects mixed with famous patients like U.S. Sen. Carol Mosely Braun, the late writer Studs Terkel and, most notably, President Barack Obama.

Scheiner, 71, was Obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House; he vouched for the then-candidate's "excellent health" in a letter last year. He's still an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but he worries about whether the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress will actually do any good, particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care," Scheiner says.

BuzzScheiner takes a few other shots too. Looking at Obama's team of health advisors, Scheiner doesn't see anyone who's actually in the trenches. "I have a suspicion they pick people from the top echelon of medicine, people who write about it but haven't been struggling in it," he says.

Scheiner is critical of Obama's pick for Health and Human Services secretary--Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who used to work as the chief lobbyist for her state's trial lawyers association.

"He doesn't see all the pain, it's so tragic out here," he says. "Obama's wonderful, but on this one I'm not sure if he's getting the right input."

MORE HERE. . . .
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/obama-doctor-knocks-obamacare-business-healthcare-obamas-doctor.html

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Quote:

You are becoming an annoyance and impossible to communicate with.

You seem to have a problem communicating with anyone that doesn't agree with you.

First and foremost, I am willing to pay more in taxes.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know