| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
9 |
thefishaholic
Nomad
Posts: 115
Registered: 4-8-2006
Location: Colorado Springs
Member Is Offline
|
|
Budget
There is no federal budget!!!!
|
|
|
Bob and Susan
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8813
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Mulege BCS on the BAY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Time Residents
|
|
even govt workers have unions...you just can't lay off people
attrition will take care of part of the excess
as fo speed up crossing times...the better they work the slower it will be to cross
if the border guys are doing their job it takes 4 min per person to cross...do the math
as for standing around... they were "on a break" or "lunch" or "coming to work early"
there isn't many places to go there at the border
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19693
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bob and Susan
as for standing around... they were "on a break" or "lunch" or "coming to work early"
there isn't many places to go there at the border |
 if that's
true, they seem to be on permanent break!
every time i go to secondary, i see inspectors spend more time socializing among themselves than time spent doing work.
|
|
|
Wally
Nomad
Posts: 182
Registered: 3-15-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis.
Things changed when Kennedy died. |
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Also, the Senate is responsible for Budgets. Harry Reid has specifically stated there is no need for a Budget (federal law) and that the government
can be continually funded via continuing resolutions. Politician speak for: "these numbers are so outrageous over-the-top that we dare not have to
vote on them lest the American people see how bad the numbers are, thus increasing the likelihood that politicians that vote for them will lose their
jobs."
P.S. The inside the beltway, "CUTS" in spending mean less increases, NOT less spending. That's so the rubes think they are BAD BAD BAD.
[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Wally]
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
every time i go to secondary, i see inspectors spend more time socializing among themselves than time spent doing work.
|
More dogs...fewer humans. Dogs don't join unions and they're more effective.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19693
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
progressive taxation is fair. higher the income, the higher the rate. at the upper 1% level, the politicians are writing laws favoring the upper
percentiles, so they should pay and extra tax, call it a tax on bribes paid/favoritism received!
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
I suppose this would be a valid arguement if one was only responsible for Federal Income tax. How about those multi-nationals that pay no taxes? Are
you suggesting that the tax system is currently set up to favor the poor or the rich?
And another question....if one were to let temporary tax cuts expire...would that be a tax increase? Doesn't temporary mean by definition it will
end?
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sequestration leads to reduction in the labor force. All commonly accepted authoritative sources are projecting that sequestration and the
layoffs/increases in unemployment due to sequestration will reduce GDP (the economy) from projected real growth of 2% for 2013 by 1.3% down to growth
of only 0.7% for 2013.
The reason this increased unemployment, hence drop in compensation to the workforce, would cause a drop in GDP (the economy) is directly due to the
lack of demand caused by less compensation in public due to layoffs caused by sequestration. This is not a supply side thing, it is a demand side
thing, and the majority of economists on both sides of the aisle agree/recognize the aforementioned consequence.
European austerity provides an abundance of illustrations of the above. Also, the issue is not government workers Vs. private workers, its math and
basic macroeconomics.
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Bajaboy
Doesn't temporary mean by definition it will end? |
Perhaps not:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/qt/incometax.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/10/temporary-taxes-...
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
Sequestration leads to reduction in the labor force. All commonly accepted authoritative sources are projecting that sequestration and the
layoffs/increases in unemployment due to sequestration will reduce GDP (the economy) from projected real growth of 2% for 2013 by 1.3% down to growth
of only 0.7% for 2013.
The reason this increased unemployment, hence drop in compensation to the workforce, would cause a drop in GDP (the economy) is directly due to the
lack of demand caused by less compensation in public due to layoffs caused by sequestration. This is not a supply side thing, it is a demand side
thing, and the majority of economists on both sides of the aisle agree/recognize the aforementioned consequence.
European austerity provides an abundance of illustrations of the above. Also, the issue is not government workers Vs. private workers, its math and
basic macroeconomics. |
The question should be: Is it better to take a 1.3% hit to the economy now, or just
keep spending like a bunch of drunken sailors and let our children and grandchildren sort it out? IMO, demographics are working against us, so it's
better to get a handle on it now.
|
|
|
ligui
Senior Nomad
Posts: 872
Registered: 2-9-2008
Location: Fraser co.
Member Is Offline
Mood: love Baja !
|
|
Pay the bills and tell the sailors its time to get to work ...
|
|
|
paranewbi
Senior Nomad
Posts: 913
Registered: 4-15-2011
Location: San diego
Member Is Offline
|
|
The g-ment thru 800 billion at the economy when the President came into his administration...seemed to not do a whole lot.
Now we're suppose to believe one tenth of that is gonna rip us a new one?
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Today is the day when, if one listens to Obama whose idea it was in the first place, an unprecedented $85 billion spending cuts will be sequestered,
unleashing famine, pestilence, the apocalypse and grizzly bears (as all park rangers will be dead from starvation). Which is why we applaud the
administration's desire to preempt this tragic for the nation outcome, by issuing, in one day alone: February 28, $80 billion in Treasurys sending
debt to (obviously) what is a new all time high $16,687,289,180,215.37.
In other words, the entire apocalyptic impact of the sequester for 2013 was offset by one day's debt issuance.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Glen....does that include touting one liners from the radio pundits as some seem to do?
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
Its all smoke and mirrors....the more things change, the more they remain the same..dont hold your breath waiting for federal employees to be out of
work...
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by whistler
Can you get by-pass shocks with food stamps? |
Maybe. I think you can get caviar, but you can't get toilet paper for recycling the caviar.
As far as cutting back on border patrol....so what? They're releasing 3000 detainees anyway.
Border Patrol catches them and Obama lets them go.
Wadda world.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
nice high tech table. looks like one of mine
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | Originally posted by Wally
|
I believe the WH and Congress were controlled by the Dems for two months, early into the fiscal crisis.
Things changed when Kennedy died. |
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Also, the Senate is responsible for Budgets. Harry Reid has specifically stated there is no need for a Budget (federal law) and that the government
can be continually funded via continuing resolutions. Politician speak for: "these numbers are so outrageous over-the-top that we dare not have to
vote on them lest the American people see how bad the numbers are, thus increasing the likelihood that politicians that vote for them will lose their
jobs."
P.S. The inside the beltway, "CUTS" in spending mean less increases, NOT less spending. That's so the rubes think they are BAD BAD BAD.
[Edited on 3-1-2013 by Wally] |
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more
wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater
numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.
Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by
the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by
the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have
sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate. Hence the
three words at the beginning of the Constitution are "We the People." This meant that the new government would derive its authority directly from the
people and not from state governments.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_origina...
and:
What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end)
to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha
Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five
months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
- See more at: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-real...
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
reported by The Daily Caller, Gray published in his book;
“"... that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the 'total cost of the presidency,' factoring the cost of the 'biggest staff in
history at the highest wages ever,' a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One 'running with the frequency of a
scheduled air line.'"
Gray also wrote in his book that the president maintains a $400,000 salary as well a total of $169,00 for entertainment, travel, expense account and
an additional $1,000,000 for "unanticipated needs."
Also cited in the book were other samples of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president;
•The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a
year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 "czars."
•The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also
estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.
•The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in
case anyone needs to see a movie. "Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average
American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year."
•The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: "First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and
irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year."
•The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: "Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine.
It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year."
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Looks like we were played.
Twitter exploded last night, after Bob Woodward revealed that White House official had warned him he would “regret” saying Obama had moved the goal
posts on sequestration.
Predictably, conservatives latched onto this, as it confirmed our suspicion about the Obama Administration’s “Chicago-style” of politics. A lot of
mainstream journalists bought into this, too — reflexively believing anything the great Bob Woodward says.
Of course, Woodward (who was expert at trolling for publicity before the internet even existed), benefits greatly from the publicity (nothing sells
books like controversy).
Make no mistake. This was no accident. As Politico reported last night,
“Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself
saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”
But today, things look different. P0litico has posted the exclusive email from Gene Sperling to Woodward. It begins, “I apologize for raising my voice
in our conversation today.”
(Frightening, I know!)
Sperling’s email eventually does say, “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.” But this is
clearly not a veiled threat of retaliation, but rather a warning that the reporter was about to get the story wrong.
When Woodward tells of being warned he would “regret” challenging Obama, it sounds ominous. But if Politico’s reporting today is correct, it seems
much more innocuous than that.
Looks like we were played.
Tags: Bob Woodward
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-trolled-us-an...Looks like we were played.
[Edited on 3-2-2013 by Bajaboy]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
9 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
