Politics As Usual

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As an aside -- serious question -- since the right always likes to hold out the postal service as the sine qua non of government inefficacy, is there any law or regulation preventing the Fed Exes of the world from offering a service to compete with First Class Mail? I suspect there is not, and that the only reason they don't is that the private sector cannot compete with the post office at this price point (even though -- I believe -- the postal service is entirely self-financed)..... even though it's had since the times of the Pony Express to try. I really would like to know, though, if there is some legal obstacle present.

There was once an alternative, but it turned out to be a WASTE. Its story is a fascinating one, though murky in provenance and replete with dark forces at work. PM Ty for details.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Dems didn't crucify Bush for raising taxes. They crucified him for making a bogus pledge -- "read my lips" -- to get elected. And then for denying that he had gone back on his pledge.

When the other party attacks you, it's not really crucification. Bush got nailed (to a cross) for raising taxes because the conservative wing of his party got PO'd and let Pilate (the voters in this parable) send him down the river, or up the hill.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
PM Ty for details.

One summer afternoon, Mrs. Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party whose hostess had put perhaps too much kirsch in the fondue to find that she, Oedipa, has been named executor, or she supposed executrix, of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who had once lost two million dollars in his spare time but still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When the other party attacks you, it's not really crucification.

Jesus and the Romans were in the same party?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One summer afternoon, Mrs. Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party whose hostess had put perhaps too much kirsch in the fondue to find that she, Oedipa, has been named executor, or she supposed executrix, of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who had once lost two million dollars in his spare time but still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary.

Why does Atticus share the red pills with you but keep them away from me?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why does Atticus share the red pills with you but keep them away from me?

Read this -- it's like a red pill.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
RT has probably already hit you on this -- but you are living in a fantasy world.

For example, Medicare's admin/overhead costs are consistently at or below 1% of the total claims submitted. That is vastly better than ANY private insurer. So go ahead, cut that "waste."

When faced with reality -- you would be forced (if you are an honest man truly concerned with the fiscal well-being of the country) to support tax increases of one kind of another -- as did Bush 41. Then the unprincipled demagogues and/or ignoramuses on both sides of the aisle would crucify you for doing the right thing -- as they did with Bush 41.

S_A_M

You (and I mean all of you) that don't think we couldn't easily cut 4% of a $10 trillion budget are out of your minds.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You (and I mean all of you) that don't think we couldn't easily cut 4% of a $10 trillion budget are out of your minds.

It's already been conceded that any individual person on this board could easily cut 50% of that $10 trillion budget. It's a piece of cake. The reason people are still talking to you like you're an idiot is that the question at hand is how to cut anything while still keeping your party from getting ass-fucked in 2006. (Hint: your party is the GOP; it presently controls three branches of government.)

You need to move to a nice, comfy third-world country where there are no social services and people aren't allowed to vote. Or, at least, other people aren't allowed to vote.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You (and I mean all of you) that don't think we couldn't easily cut 4% of a $10 trillion budget are out of your minds.

When pushed on the details, it's best to resort to vague generalities. Nevertheless, the job gets harder if the budget is less than a quarter of that size, because now you're talking chopping more like a fifth of the total outlays ($420 billion/$2319 billion).

And the only reason we're having this argument at all is because you were pretending that there are inefficiencies and pork that you can cut to close the $420 billion Bush deficit. Give. It. Up.*

*Unlike AG I don't care that (e.g.) pork isn't going to be cut. I just think it's silly for you to pretend that the federal budget is full of unspecified waste that can be cut to offset Bush's spending.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
other people aren't allowed to vote.

do you think the Iraqui people would be flattered if we went to their old election style?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Name percentage $ billions

Total outlays 100.0 2318.83
Social Security 21.4 496.17
Military 19.6 453.68
Medicare 11.7 270.45
Social welfare 8.4 195.01
Medicaid 7.9 182.56
Interest 6.7 156.26
Retirement, disability, unemployment 6.2 144.49
Education, training, employment, social services 3.8 87.21
Transportation 2.9 68.14
Other health 2.6 60.94
Veterans 2.6 60.45
Other 6.2 143.46

• Administration of justice 1.8 41.60
  International affairs 1.5 34.24
  Natural resources and environment 1.4 31.66
  General government 1.1 25.42
  Science 1.0 22.29
  Agriculture 0.9 20.12
  Community and regional development 0.8 18.76
  Commerce and housing credit 0.3 7.72
  Energy 0.0 0.96
  Offsetting receipts -2.6 -59.32

Linkie

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You (and I mean all of you) that don't think we couldn't easily cut 4% of a $10 trillion budget are out of your minds.

2.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's already been conceded that any individual person on this board could easily cut 50% of that $10 trillion budget. It's a piece of cake. The reason people are still talking to you like you're an idiot is that the question at hand is how to cut anything while still keeping your party from getting ass-fucked in 2006.

The thing you are missing is that its not about getting reelected its about going in and making the cuts. Destruction of the insidious residual affects of the Great Society and its illegimate stepparent, the New Deal, will be far more satisfying than getting reelected.

There's more money to be had in the private sector anyhoo.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's already been conceded that any individual person on this board could easily cut 50% of that $10 trillion budget. It's a piece of cake. The reason people are still talking to you like you're an idiot is that the question at hand is how to cut anything while still keeping your party from getting ass-fucked in 2006. (Hint: your party is the GOP; it presently controls three branches of government.)

You need to move to a nice, comfy third-world country where there are no social services and people aren't allowed to vote. Or, at least, other people aren't allowed to vote.

Strangely, I've been planning to basically do just that as a contingency. Club, they actually let people vote in Chile, the views are beautiful, the coast is about 5 times as long as CA, the people are less than 1/4th as insane, and you'd be able to buy a whole province after the student loans are paid off.

And then there's the womens!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When pushed on the details, it's best to resort to vague generalities. Nevertheless, the job gets harder if the budget is less than a quarter of that size, because now you're talking chopping more like a fifth of the total outlays ($420 billion/$2319 billion).

And the only reason we're having this argument at all is because you were pretending that there are inefficiencies and pork that you can cut to close the $420 billion Bush deficit. Give. It. Up.*

*Unlike AG I don't care that (e.g.) pork isn't going to be cut. I just think it's silly for you to pretend that the federal budget is full of unspecified waste that can be cut to offset Bush's spending.

I haven't had time to do the research on this this week, so allow me to talk in generalities for now. Each year we consistently raise spending in nearly all line items of the budget. Typically, this ranges somewhere between 4-8%. With inflation being essentially zero over the last 3 or 4 years, don't you think we can afford to not raise spending AND not harm "services."* I'm even willing to put the military to this standard.

And what do you mean by offset Bush's spending? Certainly I am not a proponent of his spending choices. I am viewing this in relation to reveneus.

*And when I say raise, I mean a real raise, not just and increase in the percentage increase from the prior year.