(10-07-2013 07:26 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  Let's start with Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's salaries. Oh yeah and change the law to make a mandatary twenty years in congress to be eligible for the pension, just like in the military.

Better idea, make it a mandatory thousand years.

Cut 333 billion from discretionary spending...which is 1/3 of the budget. I am at 666 billion now

Military..333
discretionary..333

Have not touched any entitlements yet....at 666 billion...almost 1/4 of the entire budget. I think Ill stop here and take a break. This was hard work.

(10-07-2013 02:10 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  does anybody see a reason to keep anything in the DOL?

(10-07-2013 04:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 02:10 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  does anybody see a reason to keep anything in the DOL?

No

Labor, Education, USDA, Energy...Fck'm

(10-07-2013 04:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 04:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 02:10 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  does anybody see a reason to keep anything in the DOL?

No

Labor, Education, USDA, Energy...Fck'm

Energy does some quirky stuff, especially in nuclear. Not saying it can't be cut, but it's not a simple decision IMO.

(10-07-2013 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 01:22 AM)blah Wrote:  Eliminate Social Security Disability payments. This is the most abused part of giveaway programs and costs $260 billion a year.

If we can't buy in for this, then Disability only for provable disabilities....i.e. amputees, diseases, etc. (No back pain, mental anguish, etc.)

Someone watched 60 minutes last night. Problem for you is that there are a large number of rightwingers in red states that would be effected, thus hurting the states economy. Come to think about it, it sounds like a really good idea.

Btw, I say cuts to the Pentagon.

I haven't watched 60 minutes in years. Did they have a segment on this?

I don't think you understand that I don't care if a person is a conservative or liberal. I don't want to support a deadbeat regardless of their political affiliation.

Homeland Security.

(10-07-2013 01:51 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 01:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 12:33 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 07:59 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 05:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Number one. 333 Billion from defense spending.

Bingo.

(10-07-2013 07:26 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  Let's start with Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's salaries. Oh yeah and change the law to make a mandatary twenty years in congress to be eligible for the pension, just like in the military.

What about the rest of Congress's salaraies? What about getting money out of politics? What about TERM LIMITS, rather than a "pension after 20 years"? They are here to serve us, not the other way around.

I could totally get on board with term limits and throw away the pension period. I think cutting all their salaries in half would be a good start.

Sure. Lets cut the salaries so nobody wants to take the job except the least common denominators of our society like you.

I absolutely disagree with you. Congress was originally a position that was supposed to be held by elected common men. Congress is filled with no one but people who are they for the money, be it their salary or lobbyist cash.

Hit the nail on the head. It's not like Congresspeople don't get a constant flow of cash from "sources" anyway, they can deal with not getting a bajillion dollars from the gov't as well.

Whatever DHS spends raping the 4th Amendment. Cut the **** out of that.

It might not be much, but whatever we spend on PBS should be cut.

(10-07-2013 09:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It might not be much, but whatever we spend on PBS should be cut.

Yes, family friendly programming that teaches young children.

It's the devil!

(10-07-2013 02:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 01:51 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  I absolutely disagree with you. Congress was originally a position that was supposed to be held by elected common men. Congress is filled with no one but people who are they for the money, be it their salary or lobbyist cash.

Exactly correct. The current system only allows people to become corrupt in order to stay in office. If they know they aren't going to be able to have a lifelong career in congress then they at least have less reason to be owned by lobbyists.

Or if they know they are term limited it gives them more of a reason to grab all of the cash they can while they are in office.

(10-07-2013 09:34 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 02:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 01:51 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  I absolutely disagree with you. Congress was originally a position that was supposed to be held by elected common men. Congress is filled with no one but people who are they for the money, be it their salary or lobbyist cash.

Exactly correct. The current system only allows people to become corrupt in order to stay in office. If they know they aren't going to be able to have a lifelong career in congress then they at least have less reason to be owned by lobbyists.

Or if they know they are term limited it gives them more of a reason to grab all of the cash they can while they are in office.

But it would be harder and force corporations and lobbyists to use much more money to put people in their pocket.

(10-07-2013 09:31 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 09:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It might not be much, but whatever we spend on PBS should be cut.

Yes, family friendly programming that teaches young children.

It's the devil!

Why would you offend people with no families or young children? This is why you can't say the words car or vacation in NYC public schools, because it hurts people who have neither.

Besides. PBS is self-sufficient, the pay multi million dollar salaries, and hire child molesters. This is where you want our tax money to go?

The thing I do like about term limits is that some of the dip$hits, that keep getting re-elected based on name recognition only, would at least at some point be term-limited out of office.

The idiotic statements made by some of politicians have made (island tipping overdue to too much weight, flag on Mars, etc.) make me question their education/intelligence and the intellect of the people that elected them in the first place.

You hear them say outlandish, wacky stuff and think, "who elected this nut?"

Next up on the chopping block ... the Department of Homeland Security. $60.8 billion.

Anything anybody think is keep worthy in it?

(10-07-2013 09:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Next up on the chopping block ... the Department of Homeland Security. $60.8 billion.

Anything anybody think is keep worthy in it?

But who is going shoot all those bullets and drive all those armored personnel carriers?

(10-07-2013 09:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Next up on the chopping block ... the Department of Homeland Security. $60.8 billion.

Anything anybody think is keep worthy in it?

No. It was my next one anyway.

(10-07-2013 09:31 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 09:10 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It might not be much, but whatever we spend on PBS should be cut.

Yes, family friendly programming that teaches young children.

It's the devil!

No problem with PBS...but...do we need 5 channels of it? Cut them..don't kill them.

(10-07-2013 09:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Next up on the chopping block ... the Department of Homeland Security. $60.8 billion.

Anything anybody think is keep worthy in it?

Maybe a small sliver to set airport security standards. There does need to be consistency there and if you push it to the states, you may end up with a hodge podge.