Clinton cut most of those jobs out of the military when he "balanced" the budget by crippling the armed forces...

 

:lol:

 

Cutting the budget and still spending many, many times more than the next country on defense is called "crippling?" And wouldn't you take a smaller military (which would still be much much bigger than China's) for a balanced budget?

I think many Republicans, if honest, would say Clinton didn't do a bad job. His personal affairs were are different matter. Obama is no Clinton.

 

:thumb: Forget his party affiliation, Clinton acted pretty Republican when it came to the economy.

:lol:

 

Cutting the budget and still spending many, many times more than the next country on defense is called "crippling?" And wouldn't you take a smaller military (which would still be much much bigger than China's) for a balanced budget?

It would just put thousands more people in the unemployment lines... People need jobs not more government hand outs..

It would just put thousands more people in the unemployment lines... People need jobs not more government hand outs..

:thumb:

It would just put thousands more people in the unemployment lines... People need jobs not more government hand outs..

 

You realize how contradictory this statement is, right? What you've said here is just a common Republican party talking point. You want smaller government and a balanced budget, but you don't want to cut government jobs because it would mean more people in the unemployment line? You can't have it both ways.

I want smaller government, and a balanced budget. It is not the govenments job to make certain people are employed, and it darn sure isn't the governmnets job to pay money to them so they can load up at Wal-Mart.

So, and this is coming from an average person, balance the budget, and grow the unemployment roles. Maybe families can start moving in with one another, turn in their cell phones,and figuring out a way to make it without the governments help. If they can't make it, then maybe there will be a coup.

My post was in response to your claim (and its shared by many) that President Reagan didn't believe in tax increases. He did and it worked. He would get scorched today for doing what he did then.

 

Secondly, it would seem that most would consider raising personal taxes, raising fees for businesses, and raising gas taxes to be liberal policies if enacted by President Obama. So, are you saying that the work/never work is based upon who enacts them?

 

So if I understand you, a massive tax decrease followed by a much smaller tax increase equates to "believing in tax increases"????

You realize how contradictory this statement is, right? What you've said here is just a common Republican party talking point. You want smaller government and a balanced budget, but you don't want to cut government jobs because it would mean more people in the unemployment line? You can't have it both ways.

Cut government waste not jobs... Jobs is not what is meant by smaller government..

So if I understand you, a massive tax decrease followed by a much smaller tax increase equates to "believing in tax increases"????

 

You're either against tax increases or you're not (and I'm not saying one is right vs the other). One big tax increase followed by tax increases IMO does not make you against tax increases. Reagan did what he thought was best at the time vs being locked into a thought process just to appease some in your party. I applaud him for that.

 

Plus, you can't just look at the income tax issue. Collectively, he was not afraid to raise taxes and fees on individuals and businesses.

You're either against tax increases or you're not (and I'm not saying one is right vs the other). One big tax increase followed by tax increases IMO does not make you against tax increases. Reagan did what he thought was best at the time vs being locked into a thought process just to appease some in your party. I applaud him for that.

 

Plus, you can't just look at the income tax issue. Collectively, he was not afraid to raise taxes and fees on individuals and businesses.

 

Your terminology was "believing in tax increases". The picture that creates does not match with the reality of the situation which was more "adjusting the size of the decrease" .

 

I agree that he let the situation rather than party politics guide him, which was a good thing.

Cut government waste not jobs... Jobs is not what is meant by smaller government..

 

They're almost inextricably linked. To me, waste is spending $13 billion on a new fleet of presidential helicopters that pretty much only shuttle the prez from the WH to Andrews a few miles away. I see no use for a kitchen or a bathroom on that flight, which they would include. But of course, if you cut the VH-71, or the F22 like has been proposed, factory jobs will be lost all over the country and private companies like Boeing and Lockheed stand to lose billions. It's a fine line to walk with no easy solution.

Cut government waste not jobs... Jobs is not what is meant by smaller government..

 

 

You do realize that much of government waste is in salaries and benefits for positions that are redundant, don't you?

 

To me, the greatest way one could impact government waste is to consolidate and computerize agencies that use similar or same data. For instance, unemployment, medicaid, medicare, housing services and food stamp services (to name just a few off the top of my head) could be consolidated. One data base and one staff should suffice. I saw an article somewhere either this morning or yesterday about the explosion of positions in the intelligence community. There was a quote there about the intentional redundancy in some areas to ensure complete communication among agencies. I can believe that. But I believe the number of separate agencies was close to 2000, and the number of positions is 10,000. Really?

Were you referring to this article?? If so I agree.. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/tsa/static/articles/hidden-world.html?g=0

Were you referring to this article?? If so I agree.. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/tsa/static/articles/hidden-world.html?g=0

 

Yes! That's the one! Thank you!

:lol:

 

Cutting the budget and still spending many, many times more than the next country on defense is called "crippling?" And wouldn't you take a smaller military (which would still be much much bigger than China's) for a balanced budget?

 

 

Actually no, it wouldn't be bigger than China's. The PLA has approximately 2.5 million active personnel and 1.2 million reserves and the U.S. Armed Forces (combined) have less than 1.5 million with almost the same number in the reserves.