Amateur Hour Continues

#3,051
#3,051
Mick said:
In the context of if spending stayed the same from year to year. A true balanced budget without having to borrow. I know that is the issue: we spend more than we take in and that is just the way it is. I don't like kicking the can down the road. Pay as we go.
Click to expand...
Pay as we go....

Would you favor a budget based on the previous years tax revenues. Say we collect 3.2 trillion in 2018, then the 2019 budget has a maximum to spend of 3.2 trillion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#3,052
#3,052
luthervol said:
I would like to see across the board federal budget cuts equal to 1/2 the reduction in defense spending.
ex. Cut defense spending by 10%, and all other federal expenditures cut 5%.
Click to expand...

Close to agreement. Increase your percentages and make them equal and you've got a deal.
 
#3,053
#3,053
evillawyer said:
Unfathomable that people could be moved by non-economic issues like global warming, rule of law, democracy, checks and balances, human rights, etc.
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
What has Trump done to adversly effect any of the bold that wasn't done by his predecessor?

And the global warming example is BS.
Click to expand...
luthervol said:
lol....his attacks on Judge Curiel is just one example that covers all of the bolded.
Click to expand...

No, your answer does not address the question asked in any shape or form.
 
#3,054
#3,054
McDad said:
Pay as we go....

Would you favor a budget based on the previous years tax revenues. Say we collect 3.2 trillion in 2018, then the 2019 budget has a maximum to spend of 3.2 trillion?
Click to expand...
Adjusted for projected GDP growth.
 
#3,055
#3,055
luthervol said:
I would like to see across the board federal budget cuts equal to 1/2 the reduction in defense spending.
ex. Cut defense spending by 10%, and all other federal expenditures cut 5%.
Click to expand...

Ok, does it matter to you how they cut defense spending to meet the 10%?
 
#3,056
#3,056
Mick said:
Adjusted for projected GDP growth.
Click to expand...
That concerns me. Here's why. When allowing the government to project growth we give them a easily manipulated stat which can lead to overspending.

I disagree philosophically that the government must increase year after year in line with GDP increases. But to your idean
How about an ave increase based on previous 5 year running ave of GDP?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#3,057
#3,057
McDad said:
That concerns me. Here's why. When allowing the government to project growth we give them a easily manipulated stat which can lead to overspending.

I disagree philosophically that the government must increase year after year in line with GDP increases. But to your idean
How about an ave increase based on previous 5 year running ave of GDP?
Click to expand...
Yep that would be better. When I said projected that is really what I meant and not the government just throwing out a number to justify an increase in spending.
 
#3,058
#3,058
Mick said:
Yep that would be better. When I said projected that is really what I meant and not the government just throwing out a number to justify an increase in spending.
Click to expand...
Good on you Mick. I could get behind any valid candidate from any party who was serious about doing what we've proposed.
 
#3,062
#3,062
hog88 said:
No, your answer does not address the question asked in any shape or form.
Click to expand...
lol......It addresses it in every shape and form. He questioned the integrity of a sitting judge hearing a case involving him for nothing other than racial reasons. That's beyond the trifecta. AND something Obama never did nor would ever do.
 
#3,066
#3,066
McDad said:
I have no desire to discuss something which will never happen with someone who has a closed mind. Go worship your sacred cows. I'll go try to slaughter the herd.
Click to expand...
Now that is open minded. Plus, it looks as if you're the one with a sacred cow.
 
#3,068
#3,068
luthervol said:
Now that is open minded. Plus, it looks as if you're the one with a sacred cow.
Click to expand...
Only if you're blind. I want to cut everything equally you want to cut one thing more than the other but I have the sacred cow. I can just imagine you proposing to your wife: chey let's get married and you can have sex with me but I'll have sex with you and some other folks too". I'm sure you were shocked when she said she didn't want to get married under those terms
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#3,070
#3,070
luthervol said:
Now that is open minded. Plus, it looks as if you're the one with a sacred cow.
Click to expand...
The irony in your ridiculous proposal is I would support it if it was sitting on the president's desk. I will take any spending cut rather than continue the status quo. But because your proposal is not fair to both sides one cow is cut deeper than the other it never has a chance to even get out of the gate. So why discuss it.
 
#3,071
#3,071
McDad said:
The irony in your ridiculous proposal is I would support it if it was sitting on the president's desk. I will take any spending cut rather than continue the status quo. But because your proposal is not fair to both sides one cow is cut deeper than the other it never has a chance to even get out of the gate. So why discuss it.
Click to expand...

How about no %reductions in spending? Each department starts at zero and builds their budget from there.
 
#3,072
#3,072
McDad said:
The irony in your ridiculous proposal is I would support it if it was sitting on the president's desk. I will take any spending cut rather than continue the status quo. But because your proposal is not fair to both sides one cow is cut deeper than the other it never has a chance to even get out of the gate. So why discuss it.
Click to expand...
One cow is more grossly bloated.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top