What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[jeninflorida]

Thats not why, their business model is broken, mail use peaked back in 2006, the times they are a changing.....people communicate differently now. They need to let UPS and Fedex take over managment

that is true, and the post office does realize that people are using email hence they have a project for a virtual mail box...just wait and see

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You forgot the IRS which costs America more than it takes it. The rest...well. you need to reconsider the totality of their actions.

While you're looking at penny-ante cuts you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

What makes up 20% of the entire federal budget? It also makes up 50% of the so-called discretionary budget, which pays for everything but entitlement programs and interest on the debt. In other words, all federal funding for education, infrastructure, transportation, the arts, and scientific research, to name but a few.

The "Sacred Cow" of conservatives. Our bloated and ungodly defense budget. $689 billion of a total 3.6 trillion budget this year. much, MUCH more than the cost of all of the suggestions you made.

A small, bipartisan group of legislators commissioned a report that suggests potential cuts that total close to $1 trillion over 10 years. The report, released last month, was written by national security analysts who represent a wide range of political and strategic policy views.

Many of the suggested cuts are targeted at spending that the analysts deemed wasteful, ineffective or outdated. The cuts, they said, would not compromise national security. "If the United States were to cut its spending in half today, it would still be spending more than its current and potential adversaries,"


Source just for Firespun..

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Obama ran a deficit many times that number. Do think the government would reduce spending by cutting the defense budget entirely? You assholes will always spend more than you have. I told you the Democrats would hold a clinic in spending when you were wetting your pants about the Pubs 400 billion dollar deficit.

The fact remains that your suggestions were nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

They were not motivated by actually wanting to reduce the deficit, just to drastically cut or eliminate programs you disagree with when there are much more viable cuts that could be made to make a significant impact. Cuts which according to national security experts wouldn't harm our national security in the least.

 

[firespin]

The fact remains that your suggestions were nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

They were not motivated by actually wanting to reduce the deficit, just to drastically cut or eliminate programs you disagree with when there are much more viable cuts that could be made to make a significant impact. Cuts which according to national security experts wouldn't harm our national security in the least.

Why are you getting excited over $1T over ten years? The healthcare legislation costs about that under current estimates (which is surely will overrun). The stimulus program is almost that big in what, two or three years?

You're getting all excited over reducing 20% of the budget by 14% (1/10 of a trillion dollars / year) . That's a 2.8% reduction, for the math challenged. (Less as entitlements rise.) It's not so much a question of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's just an irrelevant thing, for the most part.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Without going back, I believe I was simply asked for suggestions not a complete solution to your big mess.

Wait for the biggest lame duck spending spree ever after the November elections.

 

[mercury14]

Obama ran a deficit many times that number. Do think the government would reduce spending by cutting the defense budget entirely? You assholes will always spend more than you have. I told you the Democrats would hold a clinic in spending when you were wetting your pants about the Pubs 400 billion dollar deficit.

Okay so you're admitting that you have nothing to cut that would save any real money?

This is the failing of the Republican party today. Their mantra is spending cuts, but they don't have any actual ideas - much less a plan - to cut anything. When they get back in power at some point we all know they'll just keep doing what they've always done: expand government spending.

 

[mercury14]

You assholes will always spend more than you have. :

This is very, very true for the Republican party. It takes skill and dedication to take the Clinton-era surplus and turn it into a deficit overnight.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

Okay so you're admitting that you have nothing to cut that would save any real money?

This is the failing of the Republican party today. Their mantra is spending cuts, but they don't have any actual ideas - much less a plan - to cut anything. When they get back in power at some point we all know they'll just keep doing what they've always done: expand government spending.

You love to say this, but if you line up the track record of who does the best job of controlling spending in the last thirty-ish years, it's a republican congress with a democratic president.

The worst examples are democratic congress, with either a republican or democratic president....the very worst being dems across the board.

You could look it up.

 

[mercury14]

Quite minor compared to the monumental deficits of your clown.

Why do you refuse to consider the fact that had McCain/Palin won the election, there would have been the same massive recession, they also would have passed a stimulus, and there would have been the same (or likely greater) unemployment numbers?

Fine, maybe McCain would have passed a stimulus with $400 billion in tax cuts and only $200 billion in stimulus spending. Compare that to Obama's 300 billion in tax cuts and 500 billion in spending. And what do we get?

A McCain deficit that's a mere 200 billion smaller and probably 11% or higher unemployment. Hell, imagine the repubs gained control of the legislature when McCain won and this is what you get.

 

[mercury14]

You love to say this, but if you line up the track record of who does the best job of controlling spending in the last thirty-ish years, it's a republican congress with a democratic president.

The worst examples are democratic congress, with either a republican or democratic president....the very worst being dems across the board.

You could look it up.

Look at the Carter era with total democratic control. Very low deficits. Then Reagan came into power with dems in the legislature and deficit spending boomed.

So I see your point but there are exceptions.

 

[mercury14]

No I didn't, learn how to read.

What you wrote was that you have ideas for tiny spending cuts that are a drop in the bucket.

And you also advocate for lower taxes, which will increase the deficit far more than the value of your itty bitty spending cuts.

 

[firespin]

What you wrote was that you have ideas for tiny spending cuts that are a drop in the bucket.

And you also advocate for lower taxes, which will increase the deficit far more than the value of your itty bitty spending cuts.

The only thing that will make substantive cut in spending (>10%) are changes to entitlement programs, and best you can hope for there is reductions in the rate of increase to below the cost of living. Medical care is especially bad in that regard.

The recently enacted health care legislation is going to be affected by the same market dynamic that is affecting Medicare and Medicaid; it's only a matter of time until it, too, starts sucking down more costs than can be covered by any reasonable tax increase.

If the lame duck Democrats had any conscience, they'd take that on after the expected massacre in November. But no, they'll try for their pet projects instead.

 

[mercury14]

The only thing that will make substantive cut in spending (>10%) are changes to entitlement programs, and best you can hope for there is reductions in the rate of increase to below the cost of living. Medical care is especially bad in that regard.

Exactly. Try telling that to the likes of your conservative pals Vetteman, Miles, Jennypoo, Rightfield, and AJ and they'll laugh you ot the door though.

The recently enacted health care legislation is going to be affected by the same market dynamic that is affecting Medicare and Medicaid; it's only a matter of time until it, too, starts sucking down more costs than can be covered by any reasonable tax increase .

Yes, something has to be done. And the Republican mini-plans of tort reform and allowing more comptition across state lines wouldn't even scratch the surface. of the problem.

If the lame duck Democrats had any conscience, they'd take that on after the expected massacre in November. But no, they'll try for their pet projects instead.

Why? The Republicans have decided to filibuster all substantive legislation by the Dems in order to make the Dems look incapable of action. Do you really think they'd allow the Dems such a massive victory as being the party who made healthcare affordable? No way in hell would they allow Dems to actually do anything. The Repub plan is to abuse the hell out of the filibuster in extremely unprecidented ways and then accuse the Dems of not doing anything. They'll put their own partisan interests first and demonize + filibuster any Dem plan before they even read it.

The only solution I know of is a single payer system akin to the systems in countries with 1/3 our cost-per-service. To be sure, nothing the Repubs have floated out there has a chance in hell of serious cost reduction or covering anyone.

The solution will lie in doctors, pharaceutical companies, and insurance companies somehow getting less money. Those three places are where the healthcare dollars are going to.

Want to know how you can tell that Republicans are full of shit on reducing healthcare costs? It's because if you mention any of these three parties getting less money they start shouting angry, paranoids names at you. Ask the shouters who's going to get less money for healthcare to become affordable and they have absolutely no clue what to say. But according to them doctors/pharm/insurers can get increasingly rich every year while somehow medical costs drop...

 

[firespin]

Why? The Republicans have decided to filibuster all substantive legislation by the Dems in order to make the Dems look incapable of action.

You're not thinking this through.

If the Democrats decided they wanted to put through legislation that reduced benefits to retirees, are you thinking the Republicans would filibuster it? All they have to do is vote against it and let it pass.

I would say that you're smarter than that, but maybe that's not the case.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This is very, very true for the Republican party. It takes skill and dedication to take the Clinton-era surplus and turn it into a deficit overnight.

You love to say this, but if you line up the track record of who does the best job of controlling spending in the last thirty-ish years, it's a republican congress with a democratic president.

The worst examples are democratic congress, with either a republican or democratic president....the very worst being dems across the board.

You could look it up.

I have to agree with him; he has a point.

Saying we don't spend as much as fast is not exactly a reason to vote FOR Republicans even after we got to see Democrats do what they do.

And, I'll say it again, it's because too many Republicans believe they have to be Democrats to win elections.

I was right that if America got a taste of Democrats, they would fire them at the very first instance, but now the Republicans are going to get hammered for making any sort of a cut on that spending because it will play well in the press and because Democrats are going to turn right around and point that Republicans are hypocrites because they did not reduce the size of government, they merely grew it for their rich buddies and Democrats, because they control the press and education, will soon be back on top because nobody, but nobody can tell the two parties apart anymore, since no party stands for the individual and both parties are pandering to hand-out groups with their hands out...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

U_D, It's called deflation, fire sale, DESPERATION...

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/re...ass&action=4&lang=en&_LT=HOME_BUNWC00L4_UNEWS

BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — The fields and long red barns at the University of Vermont will soon house fewer cows as low milk prices, high costs and budget cuts have forced the university to sell its herd.

Other universities are doing the same, or looking for other ways to cut costs, as high feed, fuel and labor prices make it difficult to keep animals during tight economic times. The sales are taking place despite growing enrollment in agriculture programs. The herds are mainly used for faculty research.

When they go to buy the cows back, it will be at an inflated price.
__________________
The nation's total federal debt is 2011 is expected to exceed $14 trillion, about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.
Provided by Associated Press

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You're not thinking this through.

If the Democrats decided they wanted to put through legislation that reduced benefits to retirees, are you thinking the Republicans would filibuster it? All they have to do is vote against it and let it pass.

I would say that you're smarter than that, but maybe that's not the case.

Of course they wold let it pass...

Retirees vote en masse and they're into the politics of groups, so they will get to eat their cake and have it too.

To the right groups they will say I voted against it and to the Wright groups they will say they didn't filibuster it and stop it and their no vote only indicated that they were unhappy with its disproportionate effects on the most helpless among us like widows and minorities...

THIS TIME Charlie Brown, I'm going to hold the football for you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I have to vote Republican or Democrats are going to win and Republicans are SO much better than Democrats; I have to vote "responsibly" instead of not being "part of the solution..."
__________________
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
Provided by Associated Press

 

[firespin]

I have to vote "responsibly" instead of not being "part of the solution..."

To be fair, I don't know of many people here who would consider you to be either responsible, or part of the solution.

So you're good. Keep doing whatever it is you're doing. I'm sure others will be along to follow the trail you're blazing.

Don't wait up, though.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

And you wonder how the Republicans could EVER lose the Independents...




I KNOW! Let's bash Sara Pailn some more...

John McCain in 12?

The "I'm a Democrat too!" campaign?

The "I told you I wasn't all that bad a choice!" campaign?

John "Moderate" McCain
The Lesser Evil!​

 

[firespin]

And you wonder how the Republicans could EVER lose the Independents...




I KNOW! Let's bash Sara Pailn some more...

John McCain in 12?

The "I'm a Democrat too!" campaign?

The "I told you I wasn't all that bad a choice!" campaign?

John "Moderate" McCain
The Lesser Evil!​

What? You don't vote Republican anyway. Why do you even care?

It's cool, keep voting for somebody who can't win, and who you don't even want to win. That's certainly a distinctive strategy you've got there.

Of course, McCain in 2008 would have met the same criteria, right?