Spending poll

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Cut spending. I know, I have no heart because I'm a Republican, or am Republican because I have no heart, sometimes I get confused....... :confused:

Anyway, unlike BOBDN, who feels like it is a good idea to spend whatever it takes to attach airbags to anything that might cause a blunt force injury, I firmly believe that the primary function of the federal government is to protect the population (military/civilian/environmental) and create/maintain infrastructure to foster commerce.

Anything else should be left to local or state governing bodies.
 

gujuguy007

Senior member
Aug 9, 2001
395
0
0
corn is right, however the tax cuts and the military spending will affect our budget. Bush can try to B.S. all that he wants, but the tax cuts aren't helping families much, rather it is helping businesses. I'm not saying businesses don't need help, but Bush should try to do other things besides having tax cuts to help our wounded economy and improve commerce.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
$350 mil for imminent danger and family seperation pay for the .mil..

$350 mil for retroactive tax cut.

Those do what exactly?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
UQ I'd need an "all of the above button" each are not fully dependent on the other. Even if they were I'd vote for each and make mine a fish taco.

edit... we may need to cut spending but not now...
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: gujuguy007
corn is right, however the tax cuts and the military spending will affect our budget. Bush can try to B.S. all that he wants, but the tax cuts aren't helping families much, rather it is helping businesses. I'm not saying businesses don't need help, but Bush should try to do other things besides having tax cuts to help our wounded economy and improve commerce.
Businesses bring money to families by employing them. Generally if you help businesses, you help families.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
UQ I'd need an "all of the above button" each are not fully dependent on the other. Even if they were I'd vote for each and make mine a fish taco.

edit... we may need to cut spending but not now...

Ask an' ye shall receive.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,417
4,795
126
Originally posted by: Tabb
$350 mil for imminent danger and family seperation pay for the .mil..

$350 mil for retroactive tax cut.

Those do what exactly?
I think the Tax Cut number is "billion", unless a tax rebate of $1.xx is considered as a tax cut. :D
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Notwithstanding the poll, we can't balance the budget today due to the need to stimulate the economy. We ought to pay the military a living wage. Perhaps the military pay scale ought to better consider the needs of the typical long term active duty person. Besides the obvious contribution difference he has growing kids and expenses. Perhaps making the retirement 25 years and give them more $ in the mean time. I think, for instance, the pay of an E7 and above ought to be on par with an O5 with the same time in service. I understand the difference in rank but not the difference in basic needs. (I assume the variance is still material) UQ?
I also think the military ought to be the folks running the military. Not Congress.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Notwithstanding the poll, we can't balance the budget today due to the need to stimulate the economy. We ought to pay the military a living wage. Perhaps the military pay scale ought to better consider the needs of the typical long term active duty person. Besides the obvious contribution difference he has growing kids and expenses. Perhaps making the retirement 25 years and give them more $ in the mean time. I think, for instance, the pay of an E7 and above ought to be on par with an O5 with the same time in service. I understand the difference in rank but not the difference in basic needs. (I assume the variance is still material) UQ?
I also think the military ought to be the folks running the military. Not Congress.
I've attended briefings by E-9s on this very subject. The briefings in Germany were the best as the beer was free upon conclusion of the duty day.

Usually a rep from AUSA was also on hand talking about lobbying Congress for more equalized pay between senior enlisted and officers. For a while, if I'm not mistaken, an 0-3 with 8 years earned more than an E-9 with 22 years. May still be the same disparity between both ranks - too lazy to look at the moment. This topic was and probably still is rather sensitive among senior enlisted.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Here's a Pay Chart

The focus in recent years has been to "spread out" the enlisted pay chart. Make it more desirable to be an 8/9. At the same time this addressed the issue of junior officers making substantially more than the senior enlisted. Once you get to the 0-5 level though that should stop. Those guys are CO's and you can't pay a guy the same as one of his Chief's when he's the CO of a Trident submarine or some other combatant (or something similar in the other services). Housing, food and other allowances you could maybe make a case for (enlisted get more for food) but the base pays are set up to pay guys for the responsibilities they assume. Legal responsibilities.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Notwithstanding the poll, we can't balance the budget today due to the need to stimulate the economy
This need to stimulate the economy is always causing the need to stimulate the economy, No?
Seems like a vicous unrecoverable cycle once you start, like making 30K a year and having 100K in CC debt.

If we are always strateled with paying 22-25% of the gross reciepts to service the debt, growing deeper each administration, never paying principle, and going further in the rears everytime there is another recession hits arn't we asking for more frequent recessions and lack of liquidity during the good times because we have to pay t-bill holders?


As for the military pay I think a 40% raise accross the board at E1 to E4 and 25% for all other enlisted. Officers I don't know.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
Originally posted by: Corn
Cut spending. I know, I have no heart because I'm a Republican, or am Republican because I have no heart, sometimes I get confused....... :confused:

Anyway, unlike BOBDN, who feels like it is a good idea to spend whatever it takes to attach airbags to anything that might cause a blunt force injury, I firmly believe that the primary function of the federal government is to protect the population (military/civilian/environmental) and create/maintain infrastructure to foster commerce.

Anything else should be left to local or state governing bodies.
What does your desire have to do with being a Republican? Republicans LOVE to spend.

As far as the military......I say spend more! Pay raises and more equipment.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: gujuguy007
corn is right, however the tax cuts and the military spending will affect our budget. Bush can try to B.S. all that he wants, but the tax cuts aren't helping families much, rather it is helping businesses. I'm not saying businesses don't need help, but Bush should try to do other things besides having tax cuts to help our wounded economy and improve commerce.
Businesses bring money to families by employing them. Generally if you help businesses, you help families.
modern Reaganomics, heh :(
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: gujuguy007
corn is right, however the tax cuts and the military spending will affect our budget. Bush can try to B.S. all that he wants, but the tax cuts aren't helping families much, rather it is helping businesses. I'm not saying businesses don't need help, but Bush should try to do other things besides having tax cuts to help our wounded economy and improve commerce.
Businesses bring money to families by employing them. Generally if you help businesses, you help families.
modern Reaganomics, heh :(
Over 150 charts debunking the Reagan Myth and supply-side economics. Includes an in-depth statistical comparison of the United States to other rich (and more liberal) countries, showing how the U.S. comes in last on almost every important list.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Zebo
Notwithstanding the poll, we can't balance the budget today due to the need to stimulate the economy
This need to stimulate the economy is always causing the need to stimulate the economy, No?
Seems like a vicous unrecoverable cycle once you start, like making 30K a year and having 100K in CC debt.

If we are always strateled with paying 22-25% of the gross reciepts to service the debt, growing deeper each administration, never paying principle, and going further in the rears everytime there is another recession hits arn't we asking for more frequent recessions and lack of liquidity during the good times because we have to pay t-bill holders?
*****************

Yeah, Likea spiral into a black hole of depression. We can't stop the spiral but, we can put some speed bumps and maybe even back up a bit... but, you're right. As a student of the obvious as well, I know that the only way to get anywhere away from the 'black hole' is to have growth outpace the debt's effect on the revenue. This is what all the economists true to achieve managed growth so inflation and the bad stuff is in order. But, to manage growth ya gotta have a growth base that is solid and not liquid like what we've got now.. I call this condition the 'liquifaction of solid economic insight'.. like quicksand we sink deeper and deeper the more we move and move we must... it is in our nature to do something...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Zebo
Notwithstanding the poll, we can't balance the budget today due to the need to stimulate the economy
This need to stimulate the economy is always causing the need to stimulate the economy, No?
Seems like a vicous unrecoverable cycle once you start, like making 30K a year and having 100K in CC debt.

If we are always strateled with paying 22-25% of the gross reciepts to service the debt, growing deeper each administration, never paying principle, and going further in the rears everytime there is another recession hits arn't we asking for more frequent recessions and lack of liquidity during the good times because we have to pay t-bill holders?
*****************

Yeah, Likea spiral into a black hole of depression. We can't stop the spiral but, we can put some speed bumps and maybe even back up a bit... but, you're right. As a student of the obvious as well, I know that the only way to get anywhere away from the 'black hole' is to have growth outpace the debt's effect on the revenue. This is what all the economists true to achieve managed growth so inflation and the bad stuff is in order. But, to manage growth ya gotta have a growth base that is solid and not liquid like what we've got now.. I call this condition the 'liquifaction of solid economic insight'.. like quicksand we sink deeper and deeper the more we move and move we must... it is in our nature to do something...
We "grew" at 3.1% a year from postWWII until around Ford with little debt relative to GDP (or what ever they are calling it these days). Of course we actually made a few more things back then too. The debt is a time bomb...Many people don't realise its really around 50 Trillion not the 7 you hear all the time. When we factor in SS and medicare I've heard we "owe" 43 Trillion to these programs and people. We are going to have to do a lot of movin' in the comming years.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Zebo,
I 'avent a clue how much we owe... we're paying interest on the published amount and hiding pretty well the rest. I'd guess about 20 - 25 thrillion.. ought to be what should be under the mattress. Well it is really, in gold somewhere, in oil somewhere, and in federal land somewhere... lets sell it when we need it and there it is.. :D

Lots of Federal Land to sell and lease all them offshore and Alaska oil things..
We need getting US companies to use US based employees to do the work... so what if it will cost more... inflation ... turnips! We keep inflation down by getting rid of the jobs... that is the reality..
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Notwithstanding the poll, we can't balance the budget today due to the need to stimulate the economy. We ought to pay the military a living wage. Perhaps the military pay scale ought to better consider the needs of the typical long term active duty person. Besides the obvious contribution difference he has growing kids and expenses. Perhaps making the retirement 25 years and give them more $ in the mean time. I think, for instance, the pay of an E7 and above ought to be on par with an O5 with the same time in service. I understand the difference in rank but not the difference in basic needs. (I assume the variance is still material) UQ?
I also think the military ought to be the folks running the military. Not Congress.
Personally I say CUT WELFARE ENTIRELY and give that money to the Military. At least they have the integrity to EARN their living.

Jason

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Jason said:

Personally I say CUT WELFARE ENTIRELY and give that money to the Military. At least they have the integrity to EARN their living.

Jason[/quote]

Welfare is nothing more than caring for folks who, for what ever reason, are judged to be incapable of caring for themselves or their family.. If we had full employment and a growing demand for workers we'd have less on welfare. We could demand the recipient report for work... tie it into the unemployment office. You can't let folks just starve and die. All Capitalistic nations have a tiered structure. The functioning tier... where capitalism thrives and the socialistic tier where the incapable exist. This is a reality. It is also a drain on the Capitalistic side but one that is an ought to be maintained. Folks transition from the lower tier to the upper tier easier when the lower tier if funded to accomplish this and the upper tier is strong enough to absorb the influx... Today both are broken...

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Regarding the military pay..
this is what enlisted folks were paid during WWII you can apply what ever inflation factor to this that you wish and see if their pay grew like the civilian pay scale..

Grade Pay per Month Class or Rating
1 $138 Chief petty officers, permanent appointment.
1A $126 Chief petty officers, acting appointment.
2 $114 Petty officers, first class.
3 $96 Petty officers, second class.
4 $78 Petty officers, third class.
5 $66 Nonrated men, first class.
6 $54 Nonrated men, second class.
7 $50 Apprentice seamen.

Men could receive additional pay in some circumstances:

Men on duty where quarters or rations were not furnished were granted a daily allowance of $2.75 to $5.00 a day, depending on their station.
For awards of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross or Navy Cross, $2.00 per month was added to the man's pay.
For each three years of service, base pay increased 3%, to a maximum of a 50% increase.
After one year's service, a $35.00 clothing allowance was granted, paid in quarterly installments of $8.75.
Enlisted Mens' Ratings - Officers' Ranks - Divisions - Enlisted Mens' Pay Grades

Link - and other information..
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Zebo,
I 'avent a clue how much we owe... we're paying interest on the published amount and hiding pretty well the rest. I'd guess about 20 - 25 thrillion.. ought to be what should be under the mattress. Well it is really, in gold somewhere, in oil somewhere, and in federal land somewhere... lets sell it when we need it and there it is.. :D

Lots of Federal Land to sell and lease all them offshore and Alaska oil things..
We need getting US companies to use US based employees to do the work... so what if it will cost more... inflation ... turnips! We keep inflation down by getting rid of the jobs... that is the reality..
I think we'll have to print more money (which is nothing but a Flat Tax on everyone) or nationalize the debt in a revolution.:p
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
How about a 50 yr. jubilee that Moonsteration mentioned somewhere.. no one owes anyone.. then we eliminate imports and isolate.. Put Clinton back in office and he can say "full faith and credit... depends on what the meaning of full and credit is" then Bush comes back and says "operation american freedom is before us... there are no IOUs and I never said there were".. :D
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
How about a 50 yr. jubilee that Moonsteration mentioned somewhere.. no one owes anyone.. then we eliminate imports and isolate.. Put Clinton back in office and he can say "full faith and credit... depends on what the meaning of full and credit is" then Bush comes back and says "operation american freedom is before us... there are no IOUs and I never said there were".. :D
:D Only problem is the repubs will be saying Clinton hide the IOUs or moved them to Syria.:p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY