• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Ryans Budget Plan Hits Federal Workers

Did you somehow miss the point where I said "I've got no issues with this plan on the surface"?

Yes. I'm ready to endure it because I believe ultimately it's what's best for this country in the long run and what's most in line with the theory, principles, and philosophy behind what this country founding notions were imho.

If I completely changed my tune simply because suddenly my view that has been long established and long spoken actually causes me issues then I'd be a blatant and ridiculous hypocrite.

For all the cries of how greedy Republicans are, the fact that my vote make things a bit harder for me...but better in the long term imho for the United States...due to long held principles on my part is not something that's going to suddenly make me change my vote.

Gotta give your credit...sticking to your principles is admirable. Should Team Romney win the day, I wish you well. You're gonna need it.
 
So, you let your local fire department lose 10% of its jobs due to attrition. In a city with 10 fire stations, that would mean the loss of 1 fire station. Would that be dramatic? It would depend on how close you lived to that 'attritioned' fire station and what kind of emergency arose.

To cut gov't the best approach may well be to cut entire departments, rather than let the whole operation try to get by on fewer people, and possibly deadwood at that. The only intelligent way to go thru the gov't is line by line... bring in some outfit to analyze every department and every position and every employee. It would take years, but it would be a focused approach that could truely eliminate waste, such as the sole surviving USDA employee, instead of -- as the corporate world usually does -- make everyone work harder for the same pay (actually less as time marches on, due to inflation), with the smart and capable people leaving in disgust and frustration (your attrition) and leaving the deadbeats behind, who faithfully show up just for a paycheck.

I disagree. Any government "study" is usually a way to spend more money to spend less money. Hiring freeze, payrate freeze, increase pension and healthcare contributions. Let government trim itself by attrition. Its the least painless way to do it and we need to start somewhere.
 
I disagree. Any government "study" is usually a way to spend more money to spend less money. Hiring freeze, payrate freeze, increase pension and healthcare contributions. Let government trim itself by attrition. Its the least painless way to do it and we need to start somewhere.


Problems with that...every Police Dept that has substantial decreases in total numbers on the street see large increases in crime...if you want safety you need a balance between the ratio of responders to citizens...when you reduce totals the job just cant get done....now if your willing to accept that...fine...just hope its not you calling 911. Reductions in police never last long and most always are returned...out of need.
Govt is just like everyones home budget....There are things YOU MUST HAVE...food..police, fire, teachers... that you can only cut so much....there there are things you dont need like cable tv and highspeed internet or the landline or the cellphone....but you cant stop it all...there are necessities.
 
I disagree. Any government "study" is usually a way to spend more money to spend less money. [...]
In that case you've created your own reality, which, in a nutshell, pretty much describes the current state of conservatism.

As a result, rational debate is fruitless. Have a nice day :)



P.S. Congrats on the strawman... another persistent feature of the current state of conservative 'debate'.
 
Last edited:
Problems with that...every Police Dept that has substantial decreases in total numbers on the street see large increases in crime...if you want safety you need a balance between the ratio of responders to citizens...when you reduce totals the job just cant get done....now if your willing to accept that...fine...just hope its not you calling 911. Reductions in police never last long and most always are returned...out of need.
Govt is just like everyones home budget....There are things YOU MUST HAVE...food..police, fire, teachers... that you can only cut so much....there there are things you dont need like cable tv and highspeed internet or the landline or the cellphone....but you cant stop it all...there are necessities.
Today's right is interested neither in rational thought nor nuance... they always revert to the most base position that requires the minimum thought possible. In this instance it's cut cut cut, not think think think. Or, as we saw at the Ryan introduction last Saturday, USA USA USA. Bellicose chauvinism has historically always had a good outcome.... :roll:
 
Last edited:
Agreed, people will be people. But the purchasing public imposes fiscal discipline on competitive private enterprises, where government does not.
No. We get to vote about public enterprises. In addition there are private enterprises that are too big to allow to fail because their failure would take down 'innocent' enterprises. Then the leadership of "competitive private enterprise" is seldom punished when the enterprise fails, in fact they often effectively rob the enterprise as it fails.
 
Wow, I like this Paul Ryan guy already, and I've never heard of him until this morning. Why is he not the Presidential candidate instead of Romney?

Exactly.

Ryan should be on the top of the ticket, and Romney shouldn't even be on the ticket at all.
 
Exactly.

Ryan should be on the top of the ticket, and Romney shouldn't even be on the ticket at all.

You can always exercise your right as an American citizen and write him in if you really believe that.
 
No. We get to vote about public enterprises.

Eventually, perhaps, as in Wisconsin recently. The taxpayers of California are still working on it, and it's difficult when so many of the legislators are sock puppets of the public employee unions. My point was that locally owned fast food franchises, pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, and the like are subject to competitive pressures that don't exist for government monopolies.

In addition there are private enterprises that are too big to allow to fail because their failure would take down 'innocent' enterprises. Then the leadership of "competitive private enterprise" is seldom punished when the enterprise fails, in fact they often effectively rob the enterprise as it fails.

That is true, particularly of those enterprises which are granted monopolies or favored treatment by the government. We can control it better on the local level - think electric and gas rates - and wireless has done a lot to break the past monopolies on telephones while satellites have done a lot to break the cable and broadcast monopolies. But as the controlling government entity gets more remote, like on the federal level, it becomes extremely difficult to control. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are prime examples of private enterprise that is more accurately described as crony capitalism where, as you note, the main criminals are more likely to receive golden parachutes than the punishment they so richly deserve. The disaster of the Obama "stimulus" has shown us dozens more examples of nominally "private" enterprise that have been bailed out by taxpayers and rewarded for their political connections rather than their contribution to the economy.
 
and wireless has done a lot to break the past monopolies on telephones
No, the government breakup of AT&T did that.

while satellites have done a lot to break the cable and broadcast monopolies.
No, they haven't -- since if you'll compare rates, you'll see that both are comparable (and exhorbitant).

The disaster of the Obama "stimulus" has shown us dozens more examples of nominally "private" enterprise that have been bailed out by taxpayers and rewarded for their political connections rather than their contribution to the economy.
You're mistaking Obama's Stimulus for Bush's TARP.
 
You can always exercise your right as an American citizen and write him in if you really believe that.

Actually, in just about every election, I vote for myself in every race. I figure that the people running, like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for example, are voting for themselves, so I vote for myself. I think that every American should vote for themself.
 
... My point was that locally owned fast food franchises, pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, and the like are subject to competitive pressures that don't exist for government monopolies.
Please count the "locally owned fast food franchises, pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, and the like" compared to the ones owned by large corporations. You'll find that the locally owned ones are a small percentage and don't count. btw, we make a point of going to several places to eat that are locally owned.


... The disaster of the Obama "stimulus" has shown us dozens more examples of nominally "private" enterprise that have been bailed out by taxpayers and rewarded for their political connections rather than their contribution to the economy.
Please list a few. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed set themselves up, in the way that allowed them to screw things up, under whose presidency?
 
Last edited:
No, the government breakup of AT&T did that.

Sorry, but each Baby Bell had a lock on it's area. It was the introduction of wireless that gave me a choice of carriers.

No, they haven't -- since if you'll compare rates, you'll see that both are comparable (and exhorbitant).

They are competing with each other, and the value received is a helluva lot more than I used to get watching Howdy Doody in black and white when we visited my uncle.

You're mistaking Obama's Stimulus for Bush's TARP.

Look again. Bush didn't throw money at Solyndra, Fisker, et al.
 
Please count the "locally owned fast food franchises, pharmacies, grocery stores, gas stations, and the like" compared to the ones owned by large corporations. You'll find that the locally owned ones are a small percentage and don't count. btw, we make a point of going to several places to eat that are locally owned.

If you inquire past the billboard sign as to who actually owns the local franchise, I think you will be surprised. The big company may own the name, but a local company usually owns the franchise.

Please list a few. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed set themselves up, in the way that allowed them to screw things up, under whose presidency?

The real screw-ups came during the Clinton years, when loyalists who had defended him were rewarded with plum positions where they could make millions for themselves. Bush43 tried to clean it up, but got sidetracked by 9/11 and obstructed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who also managed to make things a helluva lot worse with their sorry bill before they escaped from Congress.
 
Sorry, but each Baby Bell had a lock on it's area. It was the introduction of wireless that gave me a choice of carriers.
In reality, the introduction of wireless gave you the choice of one of two wireless carriers, but I digress (yes, it is more than that now). The introduction of wireless did not reduce your telephone bill, which is generally the capitalist goal of competition.

Now, the government breakup of AT&T did reduce your long distance phone bill, since it forced AT&T to give up monopoly control of those lines and offer them to third party resellers. Since the prior monopoly control had allowed AT&T to keep long distance charges high, and use those excess profits to subsidize basic (local) phone service, the long distance rates went down while the local rates went up. Result: long distance charges are perhaps 10% of what they were 40 years ago, while local service cost about 90% more.

You pay, you decide... but if you're confusing choice with competition, you're making a fundamental error.
 
[...] They are competing with each other, and the value received is a helluva lot more than I used to get watching Howdy Doody in black and white when we visited my uncle.
Again you confuse choice for competition. Did cable TV rates decrease as satellite TV became mainstream? Did cable make more channels available, for no additional cost, as satellite TV became mainstream?

I would further note that you can now watch a colorized Howdy Doody in high definition for the same price as the original -- free, over broadcast channels. Who mandated that value-added change to HDTV which cost you not one cent? Why, the government did... imagine that.
 
[...] The real screw-ups came during the Clinton years, when loyalists who had defended him were rewarded with plum positions where they could make millions for themselves. Bush43 tried to clean it up, but got sidetracked by 9/11 and obstructed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who also managed to make things a helluva lot worse with their sorry bill before they escaped from Congress.
Now I see why you're so interested in cable TV prices -- no Fox News on the free broadcast channels :2razz:
 
If you inquire past the billboard sign as to who actually owns the local franchise, I think you will be surprised. The big company may own the name, but a local company usually owns the franchise.
Gas stations for example: BP stations are locally 'owned' but must follow BP rules. Effectively they are 'owned' by BP. Very few other gas stations are 'locally' owned. The corperate rules that local franchises must follow make them effectively slaves of corperate; it's free enterprise, just todays style. Try again.



The real screw-ups came during the Clinton years, when loyalists who had defended him were rewarded with plum positions where they could make millions for themselves. Bush43 tried to clean it up, but got sidetracked by 9/11 and obstructed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who also managed to make things a helluva lot worse with their sorry bill before they escaped from Congress.[/QUOTE] Didn't you claim Obama did it? I'll check.
 
Now I see why you're so interested in cable TV prices -- no Fox News on the free broadcast channels :2razz:

Ah, but we had CSPAN. And the 9/11 hearings were most instructive. Agreed on the free broadcast channels, though - they were (and are) so completely under the thumb of the FCC that they have all become agents of the Ministry of Truth. Along with those cable channels that are subsidiary to big corporations that feed at the public trough.
 
[...] Agreed on the free broadcast channels, though - they were (and are) so completely under the thumb of the FCC that they have all become agents of the Ministry of Truth. [...]
I see that you're a frequent watcher of the Looney Tune channel... :2rofll:
 
C-SPAN = Looney Tunes? Yep, you're a progressive all right.
 
C-SPAN = Looney Tunes? Yep, you're a progressive all right.
Strawman. Yep, you're a right wing talk media fan all right :2razz:
 
They are competing with each other, and the value received is a helluva lot more than I used to get watching Howdy Doody in black and white when we visited my uncle.
Wow! When did they start charging money to use broadcast TV signals?!? :shock:
 
Look again. Bush didn't throw money at Solyndra, Fisker, et al.
No, he threw money at the "too big to fail" companies - Bank of America, Citibank, etc - which is where this track of the thread started.
 
Wow! When did they start charging money to use broadcast TV signals?!? :shock:

Where in the world did you get that screwy idea? WTF are you talking about?
 
Back
Top Bottom