The US Budget: How Would You Fix It?

PeeTex wrote

We didn't try to "fix" Vietnam, we just let the communists have it.

Is that your plan for the Middle East? Just let the Islamists have it?

mattchuck2 wrote

PeeTex wrote

We didn't try to "fix" Vietnam, we just let the communists have it.

Is that your plan for the Middle East? Just let the Islamists have it?

I assume your plan is to continue to pour billions of dollars into it and countless lives.

Also, funny you place the Bush net worth at $20 Million, the same number that you say the Clintons make from "speeches alone". Maybe you should read these:

This one's from 2011, but he already made $15 Million from speeches alone:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/george-w-bush-rakes-15-million-speaking-fees-leaving-office-report-article-1.143215

And this one's from last year, putting his speech total at.... Wait for it... About $20 Million:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/on-talk-circuit-george-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697

So, maybe he is just as corrupt as the Clintons? Or maybe more so, because he's made that money in less than 8 years?

Nope, steer mostly clear. Tactical strikes and containment of ISIS and terrorist breeding grounds. Pretty much the Obama strategy.

What's your plan?

would you rather vote for trump or nixon this fall?

mattchuck2 wrote

So, maybe he is just as corrupt as the Clintons

So you do think the Clintons are corrupt, you finally admit it - thought I would never see the day.

ml242 wrote

would you rather vote for trump or nixon this fall?

I have never thought about that. In many ways Nixon was a great president, he got caught playing dirty and based on today's moral standards he would probably have gotten a pass. He did get us out of Vietnam, he did normalize relations with China, improve relations with Russia and made great progress in arms control and there was stability in the middle east (which ended with Carter).

mattchuck2 wrote

Nope, steer mostly clear. Tactical strikes and containment of ISIS and terrorist breeding grounds. Pretty much the Obama strategy.

What's your plan?

So you fine with the $583B Obama defense budget for 2017 a figure that is larger than any year prior to 2008 (the Bush 2 years).

What's my plan, we only engage when we absolutely need to. We get out of the Syria fight and stop feeding weapons to ISIS through Syria. Let Iraq figure itself out, we failed - admit it and get out. Same with Afghanistan. If the people of those countries want to be ruled by strict Islamic law - let them, stop trying to project our vision of civilization on the rest of the world. We have been screwing up since we decided to go into Iraq for no good reasons, we screwed up when we destabilized Lybia and we are screwing up in Syria. Finally, we get a lot more serious about keeping radical elements out of this country and tracking the potential ones that are here - that way we can limit how much we do have to engage in the future. We cut DOD's budget in half.

PeeTex wrote

Harvey wrote

http://bfy.tw/7NdT

And that was Chenny and not Bush. So show me where Bush profited.

OK I take it back, Cheney was a corrupt president. Bush has no responsibility for his actions. (?)

This is Astonishing:

PeeTex wrote

I don't think Bush was corrupt... His current Net Worth is only $20M and all of that is easily traceable to his oil dealings and baseball franchise. This pales in comparison to the Clintons which made more than that in "Speeches" alone.

mattchuck2 wrote

[Bush]...already made.. About $20 Million [from speeches]:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/on-talk-circuit-george-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697

So, maybe he is just as corrupt as the Clintons? Or maybe more so, because he's made that money in less than 8 years?

PeeTex wrote

So you do think the Clintons are corrupt, you finally admit it - thought I would never see the day.

Amazing. Your point was completely discredited, and you refuse to acknowledge it, preferring instead to focus attention on an out of context quote.

And you accuse me of arguing in bad faith? PeeTex, you're getting desperate.

mattchuck2 wrote

This is Astonishing:

PeeTex wrote

I don't think Bush was corrupt... His current Net Worth is only $20M and all of that is easily traceable to his oil dealings and baseball franchise. This pales in comparison to the Clintons which made more than that in "Speeches" alone.

mattchuck2 wrote

[Bush]...already made.. About $20 Million [from speeches]:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/on-talk-circuit-george-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697

So, maybe he is just as corrupt as the Clintons? Or maybe more so, because he's made that money in less than 8 years?

PeeTex wrote

So you do think the Clintons are corrupt, you finally admit it - thought I would never see the day.

Amazing. Your point was completely discredited, and you refuse to acknowledge it, preferring instead to focus attention on an out of context quote.

And you accuse me of arguing in bad faith? PeeTex, you're getting desperate.

Yes - it i astonishing that you believe that a private citizen giving a speech is corruption. I never said that the CLinton speaking gigs while they were not on the Government payroll was corruption. I do believe that that doing so and using that as part of a campaign to be elected to POTUS has implications of pedaling potential influence (Bush is not running for anything). I also think that Bill getting paid for speeches while Hillary was Sec also has implications of influence pedaling. So you are trying to draw parallels that don't exist - grasping at straws again.

Harvey wrote

PeeTex wrote

Harvey wrote

http://bfy.tw/7NdT

And that was Chenny and not Bush. So show me where Bush profited.

OK I take it back, Cheney was a corrupt president. Bush has no responsibility for his actions. (?)

And there in lies the problem, Bush tried to be a manager - he was too lazy (or maybe he fried his mind when he was an alchy) to act as President - he just passed the decisions on to others. I have not researched what is any money Chenny made from KBR and if he made a boat load than we should lock him up, but the real issue is the corruption of the leadership we have in front of us today. Using the Clinton defense of "Well he did it" is a stupid cop out and I am surprised you are even going there.

So I can see how it must go in your house, your daughter gets caught stealing candy in the store and when you confront her she says "Well my friend did it" and you say, oh then it's OK cause other people have gotten away with it. Great values your teaching there.

It is pretty safe to say that both parties can share the shit shape our budget is in.  This thread is after all about the budget, and if you looked through the 2010 report I cant see where any of it has been enacted on.  It seems to me it is time to make our budget priority one.  People of all classes with low debt are comfortable in there world.  People that are living pay check to paycheck die of heart attacks, our country is living pay check to pay check and the federal government is doing nothing about it.   So what do we do.  Hard choices no one wants to play nice and come up with a plan make the simple hard choice.  All departments get a 15% cut.  You can't be accused of playing favoritism.  I don't think we have the luxury anymore to take the wait and see approach.  Is it going to be tough, probably but I imaging a fair amount of each departments 15% could be achieved by eliminating waste.  

Fixing the budget must include putting military action on the books like Mattchuck has pointed out.

When we know where the money actually goes we can make informed decisions about what to cut. I don't think a 15% across the board cut is fair if certain departments get money under the table.

Cheney got a 40 million dollar exit package from Haliburton in 2001 and then Haliburton got a 40 billion dollar no-bid a year later.  There is certain an appearance issue there.  What are the rules on no-bids? Is there a law there or is it a suggestion?

Peetex you have this way of transferring... if Harv, MC, etc doesn't like (insert republican, Trump, Bush) than they must like Hillary.

I don't like her!

If republicans were putting forward any kind of positive message over the last several years they might have nominated a reasonable human being and Hillary would be getting crushed.  That is one thing you can't pin on her.

That whole money under the table thing has to be a thing of the past.  I do believe that budget that we were looking at has military actions on the book.  Jesus they all fucked up down in washington.  Can you imagine you and your wife running your budget and she is supplementing it but writing checks of the HELOC on the down low. What a disaster.  

tjf1967 wrote

That whole money under the table thing has to be a thing of the past.  I do believe that budget that we were looking at has military actions on the book.  Jesus they all fucked up down in washington.  Can you imagine you and your wife running your budget and she is supplementing it but writing checks of the HELOC on the down low. What a disaster.

It's like my budget is based on everything that appears on my credit card statement meanwhile I'm hitting the ATM for benjamin's every couple days

PeeTex wrote

I never said that the CLinton speaking gigs while they were not on the Government payroll was corruption. I do believe that that doing so and using that as part of a campaign to be elected to POTUS has implications of pedaling potential influence (Bush is not running for anything). I also think that Bill getting paid for speeches while Hillary was Sec also has implications of influence pedaling.

This is quite the distinction. It seems like you're saying that as soon as people are out of office, they can give speeches to whoever, for whatever price, and that's not corruption (even though these people - both the Bushes and the Clintons - presumably still have many contacts in government and proximity to the levers of power). But as soon as someone gets into a position of power, then their spouse should be prohibited from earning money through political activity? You might want to look up some details on Clarence Thomas's wife.

And if Marco Rubio loses his Senate Race, he might get a lot of high profile speaking gigs because he seems to be well positioned for a 2020 Presidential run. You said "using that as part of a campaign to be elected to POTUS has implications of pedaling potential influence". Should Rubio be prohibited from taking money for speeches for the next 4 years?

I'm genuinely curious if you think there are possible conflicts of interest here, or if it's only a problem when the Clintons do it.

Whatever Brownback and company are doing in Kansas.......Do the opposite!

mattchuck2 wrote

I'm genuinely curious if you think there are possible conflicts of interest here, or if it's only a problem when the Clintons do it.

I think Truman was right - an Ex-Prez should not be out schlepping for money. Ford basically paved the way as the Ex-Prez who showed you could make good money on the lecture circuit and it escalated from there. Is it unethical for an Ex-Prez to do it, no, not even Clinton. Hillary's problem is that she was taking money from Wall Street, and that sure looks like influence pedaling when she is now running for President and supposedly anti-big business. You could probably find similar issues with Trump, although I think his base fee was $1M so he likely did not get too many gigs. If Rubio wants to get paid for speeches, fine - but not while he is a US senator - so that's liable not to be an issue for him because I doubt he will give that up.