Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
24 hours from doomsday; Is your food storage up to snuff?
Topic Started: Mar 1 2013, 03:24 AM (1,105 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Mar 3 2013, 12:56 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 3 2013, 12:52 AM
Pat
Mar 3 2013, 12:46 AM
Thumper
Mar 2 2013, 01:44 PM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 03:27 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 03:09 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 03:00 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:51 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 02:37 AM
Pat
Mar 2 2013, 02:23 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:52 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:50 AM
I think ending one's consideration on the source rather than the content is jus an easy out.
Why would I want to argue what is only someones biased opinion, when I can't even know who that person is or where they are coming from politically?
You too are missing the point.
No, Pat. I get his point. It is to constantly post anti-Obama op-eds and blogs, which can't be debunked because they are nothing but opinion. If he wants to encourage discussion, he should post something factual, not just someone's biased opinion. Facts to back up those opinions would be helpful.
Agree Neal,a case in point being despite the president's dire warning, the sky did not fall on his this morning. But he has now kicked that forecast down the road too, claiming sometime in the future we will be doomed. :smile:
A mild exaggeration, Pat? He hasn't said anything of the sort. What he has said is that it won't be the well -off who are hurt by sequestration, it will be the poor and middle class, and the economy will most likely suffer as well. I agree that the administration has been hyping the whole thing, but reps are equally at fault when it comes to over-hyping something. Witness the gun nuts argument that the government is coming to take away all of our guns.
Well of course I exaggerate at time. It's a weakness like pecan pie, something I can't kick.

I think the cuts will be absorbed, people will learn to adjust. And that will be that. We do need to do something about entitlements, but nobody in Washington has balls to deal with the big issues.
I agree that if the cuts are left in place, we will have no alternative but to adjust. The question is whether the cuts will have been a good thing or a bad thing for the country. I saw General Odierno on Morning Joe this morning talking about the cuts to the military. I'm all for cuts to the military but here's some of what he said would happen to the Army alone. Helicopter pilots will be restricted to fewer hours of training, resulting in a shortage of qualified helo pilots. weapons replacement will be delayed. Training of combat troops will slow. Maintenance of equipment will be delayed and some other things I can't remember. Many government employees will be furloughed one day a week. That will result in a 20% pay cut. I would hate to have set myself up to live according to my means and then have to take a 20% cut in pay. Whether the number of layoffs will be as high as predicted, I don't know, but it will probably hurt the businesses that depend on those earners. I don't think we yet know what the results will be.
The trick is don't set yourself up to live "within" your means. Live "below" your means.
You have drank the koolaide Brew. Now use some logic and common sense. The entire cut is $85 billion this year. We damn near spent that much bailing out the states affected by hurricane Sandy, and there was not great outcry that this was breaking the piggy bank. And if you review the line items of each program being affected like I did this morning, here is my opinion. If a manager can't handle the little being subtracted from their budget, then they need to be fired and a new manager hired. Most government departments waste more than that around the water cooler.
I accept that as your opinion, but you haven't offered anything other than opinion to support what you say. You aren't in the position to have to make those decisions and have no knowledge of the complexity of various government programs. As I posted the other day, the 85 billion is coming entirely from discretionary spending, which will only hurt the poor and middle class and do nothing to upset the gravy train enjoyed by the wealthy. In addition, it's a minute percentage of the total problem.
True, but I have overseen a reduction in revenue in some business ventures, of as much as 40% and we did just fine. Tightened the belt, made adjustments and went on without missing a beat. Why government can't be more limber and quick on it's feet is a matter of concern to me. So like many of my posts, I draw on nearly 73 years of living and 45 years of business experiences. Yea I know, that is nothing. :smile:
I would guess that what you were facing were business decisions that affected only your company. The government has to face decisions that affect the entire economy. Hardly a fair comparison, imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis