Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,210
    vCash
    1500
    Any chance someone could give a reader's digest version of what Patsfan posted?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,121
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymfan87 View Post
    Any chance someone could give a reader's digest version of what Patsfan posted?
    What I posted without getting too far into the link was the cliff notes version, but essentially its trying remind us that both parties in the past have viewed internaitonal affairs budgeting as an important part of national security. It compares this proposed budget to amounts approved in the past, and cautions agains tthe tone set in the House proposal which sets to make dramatic cuts in the international affairs budget, which this report indicates would harm national security, as well as the welfare of millions all over the world.

    There is much more to it than that, however.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,373
    vCash
    1500
    From those who oppose tax increases at almost any cost i have a question.

    I am not opposed to leaving tax rates as they are (or better lowering them) but if we continue to desire the services government provides we are going to have to cut the services or raise the taxes. We increase the deficit if we leave spending alone (which unfortunately both sides substantially are doing, sadly) and by lowering taxes.

    Also one of the biggest things that contributes to Obama's budgets being larger than Bush's budgets are that Bush basically ignored the costs of the two wars in terms of the budget and Obama declared (i believe during the election) that he would declare those costs in his budgets and in calculating the deficit.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,056
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    From those who oppose tax increases at almost any cost i have a question.

    I am not opposed to leaving tax rates as they are (or better lowering them) but if we continue to desire the services government provides we are going to have to cut the services or raise the taxes. We increase the deficit if we leave spending alone (which unfortunately both sides substantially are doing, sadly) and by lowering taxes.

    Also one of the biggest things that contributes to Obama's budgets being larger than Bush's budgets are that Bush basically ignored the costs of the two wars in terms of the budget and Obama declared (i believe during the election) that he would declare those costs in his budgets and in calculating the deficit.
    Consider the notion that some of us think the government does too much for us anyway. If someday the government could exercise a little discipline and do things in a forthright an efficient manor, maybe I'd feel differently.....

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,373
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Consider the notion that some of us think the government does too much for us anyway. If someday the government could exercise a little discipline and do things in a forthright an efficient manor, maybe I'd feel differently.....
    The country by and large does not feel that way but they also want the taxes to go down. If you could convince the majority of the public to also want services to go down then that is different, but other than general claims of wanting less, when actually challenged to give or respond to specific cuts the people dont want them reduced.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,056
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The country by and large does not feel that way but they also want the taxes to go down. If you could convince the majority of the public to also want services to go down then that is different, but other than general claims of wanting less, when actually challenged to give or respond to specific cuts the people dont want them reduced.
    Depends who you hang with friend.....

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,121
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    From those who oppose tax increases at almost any cost i have a question.

    I am not opposed to leaving tax rates as they are (or better lowering them) but if we continue to desire the services government provides we are going to have to cut the services or raise the taxes. We increase the deficit if we leave spending alone (which unfortunately both sides substantially are doing, sadly) and by lowering taxes.

    Also one of the biggest things that contributes to Obama's budgets being larger than Bush's budgets are that Bush basically ignored the costs of the two wars in terms of the budget and Obama declared (i believe during the election) that he would declare those costs in his budgets and in calculating the deficit.
    I agree with you. What we spend money on, we have to pay for. Most folks I think get that. As you said, the main question comes into what government services do the people want to pay for, and which do we need to cut? While I know I would want far less from my government than many, that's where the rub comes in. If someone showed me after looking at the services I wanted provided that current government revenues weren't cutting it, then increasing taxes after we've looked at all other means of trimming the budget are necessary. Again though, the issue is gaining consensus on what services to keep, and which we can't afford to sustain at current levels right now.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,373
    vCash
    1500

    Federal IT Budget Reflects Strategic Cuts, Innovation Investment

    The President's fiscal 2012 IT budget focuses on cutting what the government can't afford while still investing in game-changing technologies, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said today on a call with reporters.

    Overall, the federal IT budget will go up by 1.3% to $79.5 billion, but that represents relatively flat spending compared to IT budget increases under the Bush administration.

    On one hand, the budget begins a multi-year shift toward eliminating more than 800 federal data centers and eventually moving as much as $20 billion in IT spending to the cloud via data center consolidation and a cloud-first budgeting policy. It also reflects savings from rigorous statistics-based IT project reviews put in place last year. On the other hand, the government is spending significantly more money this year on cybersecurity and certain special projects like the FAA's NextGen air traffic control system.

    While cloud computing is called out mostly in general terms in the President's budget and agencies' budgets, Kundra noted that cloud savings could be substantial, adding that the General Services Administration and Department of Agriculture would each save millions by moving to cloud email and collaboration services.
    Source: InformationWeek.com
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    92
    vCash
    1500
    Saw this video and thought to post.

    Turbo Tax Tim Geithner Admits Obama Admin Budget Unsustainable, Sun Rises in East, Dogs Like Fire Hydrants

    http://dougpowers.com/2011/02/17/tur...fire-hydrants/

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,122
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Depends who you hang with friend.....
    What the majority of the country wants does not depend on who you hang with. It's an objective and quantifiable fact. If you have polling data to back up your contention that people want government services cut, feel free to bring it to light so we can discuss it.
    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the bombing of the UN school, which was acting as a shelter, an "outrageous" act that could have no possible justification. “Nothing is more shameful than attacking sleeping children,” Ban said in his most harsh statements to date against Israeli action. Source.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,373
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Depends who you hang with friend.....
    We may be able to find consensus for cuts of $3M here and $20B here but you are not going to find consensus for cuts that are going to make a difference. You find a consensus on cutting Social Security/Medicare/Military and we wont have to increase the tax burden on some or all.

    A great example of this is something i saw on the Ed Show (admittedly a liberal). He talked about the situation in Wisconsin where the governor (Republican) is trying to cut out the public sector unions (savings of roughly $300M from the budget. His partner in Minnesota (Democrat) is adding a 3% tax on the top bracket and was able to close the budget deficit by $3B. Taxes on the bottom 98% remained exactly the same and the budget deficit was closed by 50%.

    So lets look at this:

    - Cut benefits and in some cases fire teachers (average salary just over $50,000)

    - Cut tax breaks for those who make at least $250,000 (keep in mind that small businesses that file under this bracket have profits not revenue of $250,000)
    ___

    Just a review:
    Revenue: $250,000
    Expenses: $200,000
    Taxable income: $50,000 [taxed at a $50,000 rate not $250,000]

    Revenue: $1,200,000
    Expenses: $7,000,000
    Taxable Income: $500,000 [taxed at $500,000 rate]
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,056
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    What the majority of the country wants does not depend on who you hang with. It's an objective and quantifiable fact. If you have polling data to back up your contention that people want government services cut, feel free to bring it to light so we can discuss it.
    We could debate item by item the importance of all government services, I suspect we would see a varied array of answers. The real bottom line here is what can we AFFORD to keep. The reality of our fiscal situation is that the desires of some have exceeded the resources of all. BTW, can you show me a poll that backs up the claim that a majority of Americans favor larger government even at increased cost to the individual tax payer? I actually would like to verify that I'm the member of a minority group.....

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,373
    vCash
    1500

    The Feds Want Faster, Greener Supercomputers

    President Obama’s budget is asking for $126 million for the Department of Energy to reach a supercomputing milestone — exascale performance. While supercomputing is an obscure branch of computing using odd benchmarks that even supercomputer experts sometimes debate, the need for supercomputers or high performance computing is only growing as we’re asking our machines to analyze more data, and appear on popular gameshows.

    Supercomputers breached the petascale barrier back in 2008 with IBM’s Roadrunner and Cray’s Jaguar performing more than a million billion calculations per second, and thoughts immediately turned to the next obvious milestone, achieving one billion billion calculations a second. But instead of speeding up processors and the networking technology inside the machines, researchers are going to have to think first and foremost about power. Running an exascale supercomputer could require up to two city-sized power plants if scientist build the supercomputer out like the current machines. That’s not going to fly.
    Source: Gigaom.com

    I recently got an article about something similar which i messaged to Cab and philab about the SSA wanting to increase usage of the online tools and features, but the rest of the government needs to embrace this same standard. But there is much more to supercomputers than just the computers themselves, hence including the last paragraph i put in above, where it talks about the need for massive power plants.

    Oh and for the rest of you here is the SSA article from InformationWeek
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,373
    vCash
    1500

    S.163 - Full Faith and Credit Act

    A bill to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached.
    Source: Opencongress.org

    The text is only one page long and really couldn be clearer, in my opinion. But it is an interesting bill. I read about it from the Cato Institute, basically it is an attempt to reduce uncertainty on Wall Street should the US default.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,188
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    We could debate item by item the importance of all government services, I suspect we would see a varied array of answers. The real bottom line here is what can we AFFORD to keep. The reality of our fiscal situation is that the desires of some have exceeded the resources of all. BTW, can you show me a poll that backs up the claim that a majority of Americans favor larger government even at increased cost to the individual tax payer? I actually would like to verify that I'm the member of a minority group.....
    If I really have to dig it up, I can, in a specific area, that being Social Security. A majority of people are for taking off the cap (which would raise taxes for people who are earning above the cap) to maintain the program. I can also find tons of studies where people want "loopholes" closed in or tax system, which means raising taxes for people who are taking advantage of those loopholes. Additionally, the last poll I read said something like 70% of people were for taxing Wall Street at higher levels. So yes, you are in the minority if you think people are against all tax increases to maintain government, and by the very nature of Social Security and Medicare, a growing government.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •