Paul Ryan - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #**106** 04-16-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I could do that. Simply cut and paste all kinds of stuff from web sites, but you'd reject every one. So why even bother?

How much assistance can a bankrupt nation give to anyone?

the dems want to keep giving out goodies from a treasury that is worse than empty. How long can you do that?
How is that even moral?

How moral is it that many top earners extract huge profits in insurance, banking tricks, and outright usury and then howl when govt. extracts a portion of their funds, leaving them with a mere, say, $5 million a year income?

A company with international operations is protected, implicitly and explicitly, by our nation's military. And then such companies often go to great lengths to avoid paying for that protection. Halliburton, for example.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP is the lowest its been in decades. One regularly hears of what Volcker refers to as the liquidity trap. It's a concept I'm still learning about but my take is that it refers to people/corps. who have a good deal of cash that they are reluctant to spend/invest. So they sit on it and the economy stagnates.

It's a bit strange that so many people were in misery during the great depression. The physical assets of the nation were still intact. But many people's ability to harness those resources to create prosperity was stymied. Who else but govt. to clear up such logjams?

Honus · #**107** 04-16-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I could do that.

Is that right? You can cite credible economists who believe that Ryan's plan will get unemployment down to 2.8% by 2021? Or that the housing market is going to see another boom? Or that lowering taxes below their already low levels will increase revenue? Well, lets have it.

Quote:

Simply cut and paste all kinds of stuff from web sites, but you'd reject every one....

That's the first baseless slur you've thrown at me in quite a while. I guess I should be thankful. I wonder, though, have I ever once attacked your integrity?

Quote:

...How much assistance can a bankrupt nation give to anyone?...

Here, you've put your finger on a fundamental difference between Obama's approach and the GOP approach. The GOP assumes that the United States has been defeated. To them, there is no way the United States can afford to fix its roads or take care of old people. Maybe the GOP is right, but I doubt it.

Quote:

the dems want to keep giving out goodies from a treasury that is worse than empty. How long can you do that?
How is that even moral?

At least for the past 30 years or so, the Democrats have been the party of fiscal discipline and success. You can moralize all you want, but the GOP has a terrible track record on this issue.

Botnst · #**108** 04-16-2011, 02:31 PM

How does Ryan's plan compare to Obama's plan, has anybody done a credible comparison? I'd like to know what the exact differences are.

Honus · #**109** 04-16-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

How does Ryan's plan compare to Obama's plan, has anybody done a credible comparison? I'd like to know what the exact differences are.

Same here.

Botnst · #**110** 04-16-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

My post had nothing to do with infidelity or promiscuity. It's the example that came to mind. I've misread women's signals many times but I've gotten better at it. A woman will rarely make a point blank proposition, and the ones who do are a tad strange, in my limited experience.

There is no way you can find 'facts' to back up that sort of communication. However, I have experienced it, as has most everyone. I mean c'mon, you generally know when someone is digging your presence and when they're not. No 'facts' needed and not likely to be forthcoming at any rate.

Is it somewhat accurate to say that a theory is a hypothesis that hasn't been disproved? The scientist who does not stay alert to new evidence is likely to have a limited career.

My Zen teacher spoke of the importance of doubt, of realizing that what you think may be true, may, in fact, not be. He also spoke of people who discover some small bit of truth and set up shop right on the spot, intending to make their living off of that discovery. Not likely to lead to any sort of deep understanding.

If Ryan's line of rap impressed me deeply, I'd be inclined to disregard, to some degree, the non-verbal clues he puts out. But his overly self confident manner, convinced he has the whole truth if only fools will take the time to listen, fits with his words. Not unlike a scientist who thinks he's ready for prime time but isn't.

Demonstrate the objective skepticism you have for your theory and you will increase your credibility.

Indicate where I have denied that your theory is possible. I dismiss it with the same skepticism that I have for mysticism of any sort. I can't disprove it, but I wouldn't build anything with it. Including conclusions.

cmac2012 · #**111** 04-17-2011, 04:07 AM

What theory? There are two many variables and no way to really measure the factors I'm referring to. But if two guys applied for a position as your assistant, and one of them had a family that he got along pretty well with, worked out regular, didn't smoke and drank moderately and the other guy was a partying playboy, smoked, drank heavily on the weekends, and generally didn't get enough sleep and had spotty meals. I give it a 90%+ chance that the first guy would impress you with general integrity more than the second. Wholesome living generally yields a calmer, clearer countenance than fast lane, bar-hopping promiscuity.

Years ago when I was delivering a package of blood to Harborview, the public health hospital in Seattle (cabs were the fastest way for the buck by far to distribute from the blood bank), I saw a police officer with a prisoner - orange jumpsuit, in handcuffs - brought in for some sort of treatment. Both were black, the officer was quite large, huge belly, not handsome by any means, but I swear I could almost see a light around him. He had a calm self assurance and you could sense he was a straight shooter. Remember how some of the convicts in the old Dick Tracy comics were drawn with bugs flying around their head? I can't explain it, but the prisoner had that look, like there was some sort of pathology floating around him.

The contrast in body language and (forgive me) aura between the two was striking.

It's not an exact science, not even a science but I'm not going to pretend that one can't discern info from a person's appearance because the data involved are unavailable to be measured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Demonstrate the objective skepticism you have for your theory and you will increase your credibility.

Indicate where I have denied that your theory is possible. I dismiss it with the same skepticism that I have for mysticism of any sort. I can't disprove it, but I wouldn't build anything with it. Including conclusions.

You haven't said it that directly but the mockery you bring out doesn't suggest an open mind on the point. Who said conclusions? I use it as part of the info available, not the only info.

Jim B. · #**112** 04-17-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Government needs to live within its ability to raise money.
Within that limit, the budget reflects priorities.
You have this much money to spend, and not a dollar more. How do you want to allocate the resources?

Total defunding the parts of the wasteful military budget that goes for spending on useless wars and overseas military bases and weapons systems would seem like an excellent place to start.

MS Fowler · #**113** 04-17-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Total defunding the parts of the wasteful military budget that goes for spending on useless wars and overseas military bases and weapons systems would seem like an excellent place to start.

Jim. I agree, mostly....
I have not opposed cuts to the Military budget--there is a lot of waste there.
I urge great caution so that we do not lower our readiness for self defense.
It is well known that military planners generally plan for the last war; not the next one. We need smarter planners.
Stationing of troops overseas smacks of imperialism. IF a foreign nation desires a US troop presence, they they should bear a significant part of the cost.

As in all budget cuts I would require the maximum cuts from overhead, and not troop salaries. Same for police, firefighters and teachers. Cut the Administration salaries and leave the line people alone. Favorite tactic of government types is to close parks and rec, and visible stuff to hurt the citizens and make them demand the cuts be restored. I would accept, as their letter of resignation, any action like that from any agency head, and replace them with the next in line--with the same provision.
It can be done--businesses, both small and large, have been doing it to survive. Government NEEDS to to it now.

chilcutt · #**114** 04-17-2011, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Jim. I agree, mostly....
I have not opposed cuts to the Military budget--there is a lot of waste there.
I urge great caution so that we do not lower our readiness for self defense.
It is well known that military planners generally plan for the last war; not the next one. We need smarter planners.
Stationing of troops overseas smacks of imperialism. IF a foreign nation desires a US troop presence, they they should bear a significant part of the cost.

As in all budget cuts I would require the maximum cuts from overhead, and not troop salaries. Same for police, firefighters and teachers. Cut the Administration salaries and leave the line people alone. Favorite tactic of government types is to close parks and rec, and visible stuff to hurt the citizens and make them demand the cuts be restored. I would accept, as their letter of resignation, any action like that from any agency head, and replace them with the next in line--with the same provision.
It can be done--businesses, both small and large, have been doing it to survive. Government NEEDS to to it now.

Self Defense??????????????..Who/What country on the face of the earth, would be stupid enough to attack the United States..on their turf, and think they can take over? Who??..Name 1 country please.

Botnst · #**115** 04-17-2011, 10:01 PM

Chilcutt, I think that was his point: Huge firepower makes attack highly unlikely. The less firepower, the less deterrence. The moving target is where we place the acceptable risk and whether we can afford less. Or more. I defy anybody to make a dogmatic statement about that. There are just too many variables and science and technology move too quickly.

chilcutt · #**116** 04-17-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Chilcutt, I think that was his point: Huge firepower makes attack highly unlikely. The less firepower, the less deterrence. The moving target is where we place the acceptable risk and whether we can afford less. Or more. I defy anybody to make a dogmatic statement about that. There are just too many variables and science and technology move too quickly.

Roger that.

Hatterasguy · #**117** 04-17-2011, 10:46 PM

This is just theater, they are going to kick the can down the road until they are forced to do what's needed because it will piss everyone off and hurt both parties chances of re election.

First taxes need to be raised, on everyone. Income tax is at historic lows, it needs to go up. As much as I hate paying it that's the reality. Also those executive bonuses need to be in a brutal tax category. Their is more incentive to make sure the company runs for the next 10 years if you can only take $1m a year of your $10m stock bonus without being rapped by Uncle Sam. Sure they will cry and only be able to afford a smaller house in the Hamptons and maybe get stuck driving an S550 instead of a Maybach, but life's tough.

As the economy starts to recover and the GDP increases that will help the deficit but only a bit.

What really needs to happen is massive cuts, about $1t worth out of the yearly budget. I believe Obama is proposing a $4T budget, we can probably afford a $3T one with the tax increases and some debt service thrown on top of it. We can probably take $300B out of defense, and another $700B out of a bunch of other departments. IE department of homeland security needs to be dissolved or merged into the DOD.

The government takes in a ton of money, they just need to take in a bit more and spend a bit less. Problem solved. 30% or less of GDP is a nice comfortable level for national debt and very easy to obtain with the proper polices.

But like I said above doing it will piss off everyone, since everyone is going to get stuck. If we had real statesmen instead of these spineless corporate elected idiots they would be able to sell the people on the necessity of this and fix the problem. Churchill, and Teddy Roosevelt would be able to do this, sadly they are not around anymore.

Hatterasguy · #**118** 04-17-2011, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If you will trouble yourself to look back through my record, I have consistently suggested retiring a couple of aircraft carrier battle groups and placing the Air Force back into the Army and decreasing the size and number of foreign bases.

I have often offered to match dollar-for-dollar, spending cuts in my choice of social and entitlement programs with others people's choices of cuts in the military. So far I have had no takers. I wish the Demos and Repos in Congress would offer each other something similar.

I agree with others who have suggested we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The air force is rather important, unfortunately your going to get command overlap in the various branch's.

Take the Marine's for instance, they really should be detached from the Navy and rolled into the Army. The Navy likes having its own pet land branch, they argue for beach and littoral assaults. But realistically its really only the Navy's job to transport and provide cover, on shore it should fall to the Army.

Same with the air force, if you merge it back into the Army I wonder if that's to unwieldy to command properly?

davidmash · #**119** 04-18-2011, 12:14 AM

How about something a bit less drastic? I think massive cuts like that are going to be detrimental. I was thinking something along the lines of a 10% cut across the board and perhaps a 10% increase in tax revenue. Do this each year (at least the cuts) as needed until we start paying down the debt and then start leveling off. I also want to see Congress loos their benefits. They can pay for their own health and retirement and they do not get a raise unless the nation is 'making' money and paying down the debt, unemployment is shrinking and the economy is growing and then the raise will be voted on.

cmac2012 · #**120** 04-18-2011, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Chilcutt, I think that was his point: Huge firepower makes attack highly unlikely. The less firepower, the less deterrence. The moving target is where we place the acceptable risk and whether we can afford less. Or more. I defy anybody to make a dogmatic statement about that. There are just too many variables and science and technology move too quickly.

Well put. I realize that lowering our military spending to just above China would create s situation similar to that of 1940 or so: a bunch of nations of roughly similar strength, similar enough anyway to allow some ambitious fool or fools to think they could take it all.