(02-12-2018 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 09:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 10:22 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The core problem with our budget goes beyond our politicians, it's our people. We're so accustomed to the federal government being a part of our lives that a large proportion of our populace don't give a crap if they're heavily involved as long as they feel good; even the people who identify as 'fiscally conservative' in surveys mostly end up flipping when you ask them if they want to cut SS, Medicare, the military, etc. Politicians are SOBs, but unfortunately we've made it impossible for them to survive in DC if they ever laid a finger on any entitlement; only when we're willing to make cuts will they actually happen, and that won't occur until we're in dire straights and we're forced to.

A lot of this is because we haven't rethought our conceptual approach, just added more and more focused programs to address this problem or that problem, and the the debate centers on whether to spend more or less on each one.
I'm talking about a totally different conceptual approach. We put a safety net out there for everybody and that's it. We don't go trying to micromanage every individual situation, and we don't need the army of bureaucrats to administer them. You get $X from the government. If you need more than $X to live, you get a job. If you're happy living on $X, you don't. And $X is enough to keep you alive at a subsistence level, but you're still poor until you get that job. And when you get that job, or a promotion or a raise, that $X doesn't go away. So there's no "poverty trap" disincentive for you not to get the job, or promotion, or raise.
Winners under this approach: Poor people who don't want to stay poor, and taxpayers who have been paying the cost of the over bloated bureaucracies.
Losers: Poor people who have manipulated the system, and the bureaucrats who have enabled them.

I don't disagree by any means, but I have a lot less faith in the American electorate than you do. Some politicians could make a 'war on bureaucracy' theme work, like Reagan; nowadays I don't think anyone could, especially when we're so polarized that half the aisle in DC and in the public is willing to make a 180 on their 'principles' as long as it benefits their side.

I think the American electorate will do just fine if a logical plan is presented to them in good order. Ross Perot laid out a plan and presented it with PowerPoints, and with no organization to start with he got a pretty impressive share of the vote. Newt's Contract laid out a plan and led to the most successful election for republicans ever. Those are a couple of examples that are recent enough to give me optimism.

What I think is missing is the logical plan from either side. Right now republicans have no platform except cut taxes, put up trade and immigration barriers, and make us into a theocracy. Democrats are left with Trump is racist/misogynist/unstable/whatever and let's be socialist like Venezuela. Neither of those--other than the tax cuts--holds any appeal for me at all. Either party that could stop appealing solely to the 20-25% that is their hardcore base, and appeal instead to the 50-60% in the middle, would win big.

I think their general plan is to "grow" our way out of it over time because the pain of any other plan is too politically unpopular to work for any extended period of time. Theoretically you CAN grow your way out of the problem---but you still have to control spending growth. Frankly, Ive never felt our country had a revenue problem---we have always had a spending problem.

We could have grown our way out of debt under Reagan. Revenue doubled during his tenure---but for every extra dollar of income generated we spent $1.33. Cant grow your way out of debt that way.

(02-12-2018 07:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:57 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:54 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Well I see Im a big hit in here. We got off on the wrong foot fellas, really.

Yea, who would have thought that taking the conservative or libertarian position, and attacking them with the standard lefty talking points (while trying to pretend you're a moderate) would be objected to...

Im dont pretend to be anything. Ive clearly stated my stance and views.

Yet you questioned my position on RAPE or MURDER?!?

Again, and I'll ask it politely, one last time

What the F$%^, is your problem?!? Rape or killing, your words?!?

Defend them, or don't ever decide to use those words against me ever again. K? Thx.

This HAS (moderately) pissed me off.

Clods.

(02-07-2018 02:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Woo Hoooooo Cowboys........


Don't you guys EVER criticize a budget again. You can't control spending when R's are in charge. Only time spending is curtailed is when a D is in charge because you guys at heart are obstructionists.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-senate-...07098.html

Trump Announces Brutal Changes to Gov’t Worker Pay

President Donald Trump’s 2019 budget aims to bring brutal changes to the federal civilian workforce, and it could spell trouble for some employees who do not measure up.

Public sector pay and benefits which can be up to 47% higher than the private sector will be cut.

https://conservativetribune.com/trump-ch...orker-pay/

(02-13-2018 02:10 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:02 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:57 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:54 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Well I see Im a big hit in here. We got off on the wrong foot fellas, really.

Yea, who would have thought that taking the conservative or libertarian position, and attacking them with the standard lefty talking points (while trying to pretend you're a moderate) would be objected to...

Im dont pretend to be anything. Ive clearly stated my stance and views.

Yet you questioned my position on RAPE or MURDER?!?

Again, and I'll ask it politely, one last time

What the F$%^, is your problem?!? Rape or killing, your words?!?

Defend them, or don't ever decide to use those words against me ever again. K? Thx.

This HAS (moderately) pissed me off.

Clods.

it's too funny how 'trans'parent the trolls have become......

and it took less than a year with a dash of #henceDJT to bring dem out of the woodwork....

I can only hope they don't wake up to reality.....they only dig it deeper for their ilk....

We just had an article in the Plain dealer dealing with cuts in Trump's budget. I don't agree with any of them.

(02-13-2018 08:23 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We just had an article in the Plain dealer dealing with cuts in Trump's budget. I don't agree with any of them.

So you don't want to blow up the deficit but you don't want to cut anything. You got any unicorn farts or sugar plum fairies?

(02-13-2018 08:23 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We just had an article in the Plain dealer dealing with cuts in Trump's budget. I don't agree with any of them.

What's the Plainer Dealer? Local paper?

(02-13-2018 04:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 08:23 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We just had an article in the Plain dealer dealing with cuts in Trump's budget. I don't agree with any of them.

What's the Plainer Dealer? Local paper?

An ugly guy selling used cars?

(02-12-2018 08:04 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.

Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say? When people use this type of wild hyperbole it tells me they are very emotional.
If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

More juvenile platitudes. Which part of the bolded above is "emotional", or hyperbole? You don't think those things happen, everyday all across this Country?


Specifically, which of the above do you claim as "overstatement"? How many properties or encounters with Federal Do-Gooders have you ever experienced?
What Federal program or Agency was Sooooo wildly successful that it was eventually ended and/or disbanded entirely? Just one?

I don't personally know of any of these situations. Especially not "perhaps millions of other things" HA HA Stop whining and enjoy life. You are not a victim. Stop acting like one.

You still haven't mentioned how you would feel about the government regulating a woman's body?

Great. So you admit you actually don't know what you're talking about. Glad we cleared that up.

Wanting and advocating for smaller, more efficient, more responsive government at all levels is not "whining" or acting like a victim, never in my life have I claimed that, frustrated time and time again? Oh yea. Goes on nearly daily.

Why do you care how I "feel" about government regulating a persons body? You want me to tell you what I think?

I think Government has some role in regulating certain behaviors of people. If you're shooting up behind the wheel of a car, or OD'd in a public park, you're going to jail. Then likely mandatory drug court/treatment. If you're pregnant, don't drink. If you're driving, don't drink or toke. If you are inclined to throw your McDonalds trash out of the car at the stop light, don't do it. If you do I hope you get a fat ticket and Community service picking up other fucktards garbage. Wear a seatbelt, don't text while driving. Don't be a prostitute, nor engage in kiddie porn.

There's lots of rules, laws, regulations that government imposes on the individual, some are necessary, some are worthwhile, many are intrusive and onerous.


Fair enough?

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.

Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

(02-12-2018 10:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 09:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 10:22 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The core problem with our budget goes beyond our politicians, it's our people. We're so accustomed to the federal government being a part of our lives that a large proportion of our populace don't give a crap if they're heavily involved as long as they feel good; even the people who identify as 'fiscally conservative' in surveys mostly end up flipping when you ask them if they want to cut SS, Medicare, the military, etc. Politicians are SOBs, but unfortunately we've made it impossible for them to survive in DC if they ever laid a finger on any entitlement; only when we're willing to make cuts will they actually happen, and that won't occur until we're in dire straights and we're forced to.

A lot of this is because we haven't rethought our conceptual approach, just added more and more focused programs to address this problem or that problem, and the the debate centers on whether to spend more or less on each one.

I'm talking about a totally different conceptual approach. We put a safety net out there for everybody and that's it. We don't go trying to micromanage every individual situation, and we don't need the army of bureaucrats to administer them. You get $X from the government. If you need more than $X to live, you get a job. If you're happy living on $X, you don't. And $X is enough to keep you alive at a subsistence level, but you're still poor until you get that job. And when you get that job, or a promotion or a raise, that $X doesn't go away. So there's no "poverty trap" disincentive for you to get the job, or promotion, or raise.

Winners under this approach: Poor people who don't want to stay poor, and taxpayers who have been paying the cost of the over bloated bureaucracies.
Losers: Poor people who have manipulated the system, and the bureaucrats who have enabled them.

I don't disagree by any means, but I have a lot less faith in the American electorate than you do. Some politicians could make a 'war on bureaucracy' theme work, like Reagan; nowadays I don't think anyone could, especially when we're so polarized that half the aisle in DC and in the public is willing to make a 180 on their 'principles' as long as it benefits their side.

While I sort of agree I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.

I believe that if there were a party that truly wanted to reform the government to make it more efficient it would be extremely popular nationally.

If there were a party that:

1. Instituted a zero based budget instead of starting off with what you spent last year.

2. Forced the agencies to justify the budgeted expense by showing either the Constitutional mandate or the federal law requiring it

3. Eliminated duplication of services. Do we really need a Forest Service and BLM or could we eliminate a ton of waste by combining the two? Does nearly every single federal agency need it's own police department, most of which are primarily just there for security reasons, or could we consolidate them all into a branch of DOJ or DHS and eliminate a ton of overhead? Would we come out cheaper if we just contracted with the state and local law enforcement agencies in the areas where we have these facilities?

I'd probably break a leg trying to hurry to the polls to vote for their candidates.

I'd probably be right there with you, but the question is how we get from A to B. It's easy to speculate how successful a party with that platform would be, but with the current power brokers who knows how that'll come to pass. Imo the vast majority of Republicans in office only care about themselves and using the status quo to gain/maintain power, Democrats care about themselves and a collectivist redistribution political system aligned with social justice as a means to do so, while Trump cares about a weird mix of populism, his ego, and anti-Obama outrage that results in ridiculous mannerisms and sometimes alright policy. None of those three are good for the short or long-term future of the US.

(02-13-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.

Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

Despite the callous and unnecessary remark, at least you take a stand. Did you notice how Dunk punted? Never did answer the question, did he?

(02-13-2018 08:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.
Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.
No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?
If not, great. Welcome aboard.
if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

Despite the callous and unnecessary remark, at least you take a stand. Did you notice how Dunk punted? Never did answer the question, did he?

Sometimes callous is necessary. This is one of those times.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf..._targeted_

(02-13-2018 08:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.

Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

Despite the callous and unnecessary remark, at least you take a stand. Did you notice how Dunk punted? Never did answer the question, did he?

The problem with using abortion "rights" as an example of being principled is way off base.

(02-13-2018 08:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.

Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

Despite the callous and unnecessary remark, at least you take a stand. Did you notice how Dunk punted? Never did answer the question, did he?

WTF are you even talking about?!?

when did you mention abortion?!?

Please don't ascribe things to me that didn't happen.

If you want an an honest answer to an honest question, Then by ALL means. Ask that honest question.

Please, don't be another tool.

Where Did You Mention killing babies?!?

Answer, nowhere.

Weird.

(02-13-2018 08:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-10-2018 01:03 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Seems your the one with the platitudes and talking points.

Address my question please. Are you consistent in your disdain for government interference in our private lives? Or do you only object when you disagree with the situation at hand?

Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

Despite the callous and unnecessary remark, at least you take a stand. Did you notice how Dunk punted? Never did answer the question, did he?

What was your question, joker?

You asked about govt’s talking about womens something, right?

Did I not answer that, entirely?!?

Guys,

Around Christmas let’s say hypothetically we had a family of four to a hypothetical mom. One of the hypothetical kids kept showing up in 3rd grade without a coat. This hypothetical school runs a program where the community makes sure every kid has a warm winter coat. The school nurse solicits funds buys the coats the whole 9. Let’s put this hypothetical school in Ohio. So when this kid shows up on a day with a -20 wind chill without a coat the teacher sent him down to the principals office. So in this made up hypothetical story the principal asks what happens with the coat Johnny? Mom sells them on eBay. Social Services is called. Through further investigations allegedly they find out this nice Mom of four also pimps out the oldest daughter to the neighborhood. Police are called in but before the noose tightens the family skips town never to be heard from again.

Now after hearing this hypothetical story could anyone blame someone for being pro choice? Asking for a friend.

(02-14-2018 01:40 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 08:53 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 04:41 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Oh, yes. Bigly.

No one needs to tell me what to eat, what size soda I can drink, what sport my kids can play, where he or she MUST attend a school, what hospital I have to report to, what Doctor I prefer for myself, wife or children, whether I can fish in my pond or in my Mothers lake, where I can walk my dog, who I prefer to assemble and associate with. perhaps a million other things.

You have any objection to being directed on any of that?

If not, great. Welcome aboard.

if so, yea part of the problem.

Pretty serious overstatement wouldn't you say?

Nope.

Quote:[b]If you are principled, then you should have no problem with abortion rights, correct[/b]?

I am fine with abortion within limits. But no late term. Probably 75% of babies who are aborted would vote democrat if they lived, so I’m not sure it makes sense for republicans to oppose abortion.

Despite the callous and unnecessary remark, at least you take a stand. Did you notice how Dunk punted? Never did answer the question, did he?

WTF are you even talking about?!?

when did you mention abortion?!?

Please don't ascribe things to me that didn't happen.

If you want an an honest answer to an honest question, Then by ALL means. Ask that honest question.

Please, don't be another tool.

Where Did You Mention killing babies?!?

Answer, nowhere.

Weird.

You are either being a total tool or your just a special kind of stupid Please don't pretend you did not see my question.

(02-14-2018 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys,

Around Christmas let’s say hypothetically we had a family of four to a hypothetical mom. One of the hypothetical kids kept showing up in 3rd grade without a coat. This hypothetical school runs a program where the community makes sure every kid has a warm winter coat. The school nurse solicits funds buys the coats the whole 9. Let’s put this hypothetical school in Ohio. So when this kid shows up on a day with a -20 wind chill without a coat the teacher sent him down to the principals office. So in this made up hypothetical story the principal asks what happens with the coat Johnny? Mom sells them on eBay. Social Services is called. Through further investigations allegedly they find out this nice Mom of four also pimps out the oldest daughter to the neighborhood. Police are called in but before the noose tightens the family skips town never to be heard from again.

Now after hearing this hypothetical story could anyone blame someone for being pro choice? Asking for a friend.

I'm certain that happens.....however, what is the root cause for those isolated occurances....

#capitalism vs. #socialism vs. #human vs. #intelligence vs. #etc.....

there's quite a few itemized reasoning(s) could be tossed out in relative terms...

there is no utopian solution....

it is scenario(s) like your hypothetical, that Hearst learned early in the game how to 'prey upon'......it is also what the dems do best to this day.....

#shitehappens

#prochoiceeveryday