Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
Monday, April 1, 2019 2:05 AM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Monday, April 1, 2019 2:31 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Monday, April 1, 2019 2:49 AM
REAVERFAN
Monday, April 1, 2019 3:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Are we talking about the do-able, or the ideal? ----------- Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
Monday, April 1, 2019 3:25 AM
Monday, April 1, 2019 3:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: fighting powerful vested interests
Monday, April 1, 2019 5:31 AM
JO753
rezident owtsidr
Monday, April 1, 2019 7:51 AM
Monday, April 1, 2019 8:30 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Quote:Originally posted by JO753: Mine iz http://www.7532020.com/ ---------------------------- DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early http://www.7532020.com .
Tuesday, April 2, 2019 4:22 PM
Tuesday, April 2, 2019 10:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: military severely reduce military overseas abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent
Quote:environment commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord
Quote:economy stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage
Wednesday, April 3, 2019 4:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Ok, I have time to discuss .... All of these are technically do-able, and well within the purview of a President. But the way this is phrased gives rise to a few questions: How severely do we reduce our overseas military? 50% 80%? Which areas of the globe continue to "enjoy" our bases, installations, and troops? What does this do to NATO and our agreements with Japan and Saudi Arabia and to Israel? Do we give them time to prepare for our troop withdrawal? What happens to the troops that we bring home? Technically, if they're still enlisted don't we till have to pay them?
Quote:This effort formally began in 2006 when General Peter Schoomaker (the Army Chief of Staff at the time), was given the support to move the Army from its Cold War divisional orientation to a full-spectrum capability with fully manned, equipped and trained brigades. ... By 2028, in Multi-Domain Operations (MDO)— as part of the Joint force, Army Strategy is to counter a near-peer adversary which is capable of competition in all domains.
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM:Nuclear capability ... in order to be credible, it's my understanding that the warheads need to be tested from time to time as the nuclear "fuel" degrades; also the explosive which rams the nuclear material together also degrades. A "defensive" nuclear posture would probably require submarine-based nuclear weapons because land-based nuclear weapons are subject to a first-strike attack. I think that's do-able and would be credible, but maybe someone with more info on nuclear strategy can help out.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is beyond a President, who can sign a treaty but which much be approved by Congress. The President DOES have regulatory authority, but that's an ephemeral thing: Just look how the EPA gets whipsawed every time a new President takes office. The only way to make progress on this is to convince the population ... and that means the ENTIRE population, not just the "Hillary archipelago" ... that climate change is upon us.
Friday, April 5, 2019 7:28 PM
Saturday, April 6, 2019 2:18 PM
CAPTAINCRUNCH
... stay crunchy...
Saturday, April 6, 2019 2:54 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Saturday, April 6, 2019 4:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: 1. Balance the Budget. 2. Pay down the Debt. For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior. Obama obliterated that model. So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher. The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
Saturday, April 6, 2019 4:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by captaincrunch: Meh - party platforms are easy to write and even easier to ignore. They're probably written by some first year interns.
Saturday, April 6, 2019 8:08 PM
Sunday, April 7, 2019 4:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: 1. Balance the Budget. 2. Pay down the Debt. For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior. Obama obliterated that model. So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher. The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Quote:Originally posted by captaincrunch: Meh - party platforms are easy to write and even easier to ignore. They're probably written by some first year interns.
Sunday, April 7, 2019 2:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: I agree with you. But rather than an across-the-board freeze I'd look for areas that can be trimmed of fat.
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: That is the exact logic behind the problem. There are no Partisans who do not have a pet project, pet Department or Agency, favored sector of Government or constituents. As some Libertarian candidates have simply said, if you could reduce the spending in all the portions of the budget you dislike, would you be willing to allow the reduction in spending of your favorite program?
Sunday, April 7, 2019 3:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: So you have no thoughts about what is going wrong that you'd like to change or eliminate; or about what is going right that you'd like to expand or at least preserve?
Quote:Originally posted by captaincrunch: Preserve??? Why? Like for points later? That's just guessing and has little connection to what actually happens. If you guess right but for the wrong reasons, do you still get points? Sounds boring as hell - pass.
Sunday, April 7, 2019 5:00 PM
Sunday, April 7, 2019 6:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: -- In 1986 the Gramm-Rudman Act was in effect. -- If you want to re-prioritize one Budget Section over or under another, all of that can be done within the template of the 2006 Budget.
Sunday, April 7, 2019 6:28 PM
Sunday, April 7, 2019 8:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business.
Sunday, April 7, 2019 8:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business. I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information.
Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:18 PM
Monday, April 8, 2019 7:57 AM
Monday, April 8, 2019 11:16 AM
THG
Quote:Originally posted by rue: military severely reduce military overseas abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent environment commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord economy stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage
Monday, April 8, 2019 2:08 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THG: Quote:Originally posted by rue: military severely reduce military overseas abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent environment commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord economy stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage I wish you luck comrade kiki. I hope Putin doesn't kill you with poison or something for running against him. T
Monday, April 8, 2019 5:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures. So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable? Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced? Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks. PS: So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable.
Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 PM
Monday, April 8, 2019 6:02 PM
Quote:JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures. So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable? Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced? Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks. PS: So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable. - SIGNY No matter how much we raise Taxes, Congress Spends more. At this point where Debt exceeds GDP, we need to get or have a plan to reduce the Debt to half of GDP, like it was about 12 years ago. WE should get lower than that, in times of prosperity, but on the road to 1/2 we should learn some things which we have never learned before. Those new lessons can be used to application towards far lower Debt. USA accomplished about 150 years without sustained Debt, we should return to that. Paying less interest and being no longer owned by Foreigners should reap great benefits. WWIII is the only excuse for spending more than we intake in Revenues. Once we have a Balanced Budget for at least a year, more folk will be on board for selective additions to spending. That is the point where eveybody's pet project or Budget Item will get negotiated. Spending our way to prosperity has never worked, and we should stop trying it.
Monday, April 8, 2019 11:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures. So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable? Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced? Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks. PS: So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable. - SIGNY No matter how much we raise Taxes, Congress Spends more. At this point where Debt exceeds GDP, we need to get or have a plan to reduce the Debt to half of GDP, like it was about 12 years ago. WE should get lower than that, in times of prosperity, but on the road to 1/2 we should learn some things which we have never learned before. Those new lessons can be used to application towards far lower Debt. USA accomplished about 150 years without sustained Debt, we should return to that. Paying less interest and being no longer owned by Foreigners should reap great benefits. WWIII is the only excuse for spending more than we intake in Revenues. Once we have a Balanced Budget for at least a year, more folk will be on board for selective additions to spending. That is the point where eveybody's pet project or Budget Item will get negotiated. Spending our way to prosperity has never worked, and we should stop trying it. I was prepared to read that all government spending is bad, that people should not become dependent on government, that taxation is coercive ... the libertarian angle. Some of which I agree with, BTW. But it sounds to me like you're primarily concerned about TOO MUCH debt, not debt at any level, government spending generically, taxation, or the existence of government itself. In other words, practical considerations, not ideological. Ok, needs more thought on my part and right now too busy for follow-up but thanks for the reply!
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 2:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business. I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information. Also, why 2006? What's special about that year?
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:55 AM
Quote: The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business. JSF I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information. Also, why 2006? What's special about that year? -RUE FY2006. From October 2005 to September 2006. In November 2006 the Rock-The-Vote Election swept Democrats into Congress. They started mangling the FY2008 Budget, which took effect October 2007. By the end of October 2007 the Economy and Markets ceased their upward trajectory, hit their peaks, and began the tailspin of the Rock-The-Vote Recession, with Markets bottoming out in March 2009. FY2006 was the last sustainable Budget spending profile, unmolested so that it did not instigate Economic Tailspin.- JSF
Quote: Starting with the Democrat Spendaholic FY2008 Budget, devaluation, skyrocketing spending and Debt bloated all reasonable Budget Items beyond recognition. Everything from that point is chasing our own tail in terms of Budget control.
Quote: The more years that pass by with ballooning spending makes this target appear more drastic. But using bloated figures as excuse or basis to bloat more is just insane.
Quote:Let's assume you are interested in this method, but find it too drastic. You might consider that, since Obama increased the Budget by 33%, the target of all facets of the 2006 Budget could be increased by 10% or 16% across the board, and that would be the amount to freeze at. This could appear more palatable to reluctant spendaholics, but pretending that a higher level is acceptable is just setting these failures in concrete. Hope that helps you understand my position.
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:30 PM
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:22 PM
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 5:39 PM
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 8:17 PM
Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:30 PM
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:39 PM
Thursday, April 11, 2019 1:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: At some point I hope to go here and just look at year-by-year January totals. I'm posting this here for reference: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm And I have to remember to see of bond sales are included as debt, since afaik dubya kept war-spending out of the budget with 'emergency spending' bills paid for by bonds.
Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really. It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage. Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore. These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime. I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income. The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/ EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick. You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:42 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I doubt talks of raising the minimum wage has much to do with any of this, really. It has been the dream of the people running the show to automate everything that can possibly be automated. I don't think there is any real "ramping up" going on right now, and that's just a convenient political argument against raising the minimum wage. Like it or not, this is the future. 12 years ago my salary was sent to India to pay 5 or 6 people with masters degrees to do much more work, and they lived like kings off of that pay. I'd be really surprised if more than 30% of what I used to do back then even requires any human input at all anymore. These days, I can't even feel relatively safe that a manual labor job that can't be outsourced to another country is going to be around in another 5 or 10 years because of automation, or at least changing the entire way people shop online. Hell... even the trucks that haul all of our shit all over the country are going to be driving themselves in my lifetime. I don't mean to sound like a Socialist, but I do think that given these advancements it is time to start legitimate discussions on a Universal Basic Income. The only Democratic candidate I've heard talk about it is Andrew Yang. While he fully supports the UBI, he is against raising the minimum wage... Automation being one of the reasons. Another one being that a larger minimum wage equates to more taxes paid. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/ EDIT: Incidentally, the amount of theft that occurs with scan and go is outrageous, but it was put in the budget beforehand. Low maintenance registers with a one time installation cost save a bundle over human employees and they don't get paid any benefits or call in sick. You've got to remember that these corporations that are struggling don't really put any emphasis on customer service anymore. The quirks that present themselves, such as needing human input for the use of coupons or alcohol purchases aren't anything that they really care about. The only thing that matters in the end is the bottom line. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Friday, April 12, 2019 5:35 PM
Friday, April 12, 2019 7:03 PM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by rue: More about the wonders of US foreign policy: The International Criminal Court abandoned an Afghanistan war-crimes inquiry that could have implicated American forces. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/asia/icc-afghanistan-.html
Sunday, April 14, 2019 1:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: I've copied most of it here: KaN YQ KoWNT, SUKRZ?
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL