jeblackstar

Tex, you're upset about 16.2 million dollars being spent in a program which has already revolutionized the world twice? When the national deficit measures in the hundreds of Billions? That seems a little silly.

Hey, she stuck her neck out and clearly stated:

OK, now I am admitting up front that I am very ignorant when it comes to this, and what follows is me talking out of my ass about things that I know nothing about.

cut here some slack jetblackstar,

Pam Johnson

Dade - do you really beleive that raising taxes on the wealthly and larger corps is really going to help. Sorry if you do.

Thank you so much for making this point.

jeblackstar

Further, the budget should not be based off what might be received in the future, but instead should be based off what was received in the last year.

Oh you mean like Clinton's "projected surplus" that "Bush squandered away?"

don't know if you read my disclaimer, but maybe you should do that before you get on my case.

"My Bad"

Cheers

Umm, yes, iamheather, exactly like that.

Bush took those numbers, assumed they would ultimately exist and gave a huge tax cut based off of them.

(Like how I turned your attempted jibe at Clinton into a jibe a Bush?)

Please iamheather, if you don't like me or my posts, try not to lecture me.  I agree with most things Tex says, but I have a very dear place in my heart for NASA, if you decide not to like my saying that someone suggesting getting rid of my personal favorite government project is silly, than perhaps you should tell me why.  Or perhaps this is just more of you being upset at our shouting matches in other articles?

Cheers

Please iamheather, if you don't like me or my posts, try not to lecture me.

I do like you and your posts, jetblackstar. I do have a right to disagree and voice that opinion. Try not to view my disagreement as a lecture.

Or perhaps this is just more of you being upset at our shouting matches in other articles?

Didn't realize we ever had a shouting match. I didn't even realize that we have ever conversed extensively.

Seriously, jetblackstar, I love debate. I do not ever take things personally, and I hope you will do the same.

Bush took those numbers, assumed they would ultimately exist and gave a huge tax cut based off of them

I have to disagree with your characterization of the tax cut. Bush looked at the economy, saw that it needed a big boost to get it back on track after (a) a recession and (b) an act of terrorism, and gave a decent-size tax cut program, spread over 10 years, to get and keep things moving.

I think that Congress should have to rank budget items by priority, and the budget pays things in that order. Once the budget limit is reached, any item that is still unpaid remains unpaid, because it just wasn't important enough in the first place.

I have to disagree with your characterization of the tax cut. Bush looked at the economy, saw that it needed a big boost to get it back on track after (a) a recession and (b) an act of terrorism, and gave a decent-size tax cut program, spread over 10 years, to get and keep things moving.

I agree with your assessment, citahellion, but refrained from posting it on the grounds I might be accused of lecturing. Thank you for posting that.

I think that Congress should have to rank budget items by priority, and the budget pays things in that order. Once the budget limit is reached, any item that is still unpaid remains unpaid, because it just wasn't important enough in the first place.

Good idea, but unfortunately more time would be spent arguing on what priority # each thing gets instead of on the budget.

Well, if they can't agree on a new budget, then every program could continue at 99% of its previous level of funding. And if they're really reduced to "No, repopulating the Arkansas mongoose is more important than studying the effects of cosmic radiation on biodegradability in landfills!", let them bicker all they want.
If they can agree on the top 100 or so things, and pass that budget separately, and then argue til they're blue about all the random crappy programs, that's even better.

If they can agree on the top 100 or so things, and pass that budget separately, and then argue til they're blue about all the random crappy programs, that's even better.

Run for office with this as your platform. I'd vote for your logic.

My apologies iamheather, I am equating your opinions with those of your husband, he and I have had very heated arguments about social issues, this equation, in my mind, led to an unfair characterization of your post.  I am more than willing for the federal government, in fact, I would love for the federal government, to call up a list of priorities and then, if we have enough to pay for every thing, great, more money to pay down the debt, if not, those items don't get paid for.  I have a feeling the constituents would quickly help them realize where their priorities are.

Cheers

My apologies iamheather, I am equating your opinions with those of your husband, he and I have had very heated arguments about social issues, this equation, in my mind, led to an unfair characterization of your post.

Thank you. I am a little less harsh in my disagreements and opinions than my husband. One of the reasons I married him is because he is firm and keeps me in line as I am very opinionated. Glad we cleared that up

I want mp3 player. What will advise?

Hi
To write the letter, it is necessary ...

With palms together,

Frankly I think we ought to privatize almost everything. Government should spend money only to regulate and oversee the private sector as it does its job (making sure it doesn't kill, rob, or otherwise destroy people and the environment in the process). Getting rid of nukes, big savings. Getting rid of war, big savings. Investing in people worldwide in an international free market, very wise.

Be well.

With palms together, Frankly I think we ought to privatize almost everything. Government should spend money only to regulate and oversee the private sector as it does its job (making sure it doesn't kill, rob, or otherwise destroy people and the environment in the process). Getting rid of nukes, big savings. Getting rid of war, big savings. Investing in people worldwide in an international free market, very wise. Be well.

Sorry, but I think your talking either fantasy or science fiction here. Of the 3 things you quoted.....The first won't happen, the last might happen. Now the second???? That'll NEVER happen! You can talk about Buddism (peace, love, etc...) all you want, but until they are a majority or the whole world converts it doesn't mean alot.

Eliminate CPS altogether. Relegate investigations of ALL criminal activity to LAW ENFORCEMENT, and use private, nonprofit organizations (there are many) to facilitate child placement when a child is removed from their biological parents.

Do any of you know how different the world would be without NASA? No satellites for your TV, cell phones, weather prediction. Home computers and miniaturization came about because of the space age.

So, let the private corporations that profit off of space technology fund it instead of getting a "free" (or reduced price) ride.

Trimming the fat needs to happen at all levels of government: federal, state, and local. In Texas, our legislators are meeting in their SIXTH "special session" to put together a school finance bill. They receive per diems, of course, and their expenses are covered.

A while back, I proposed a solution, originally half tongue in cheek, but one about which I am becoming more serious. If lawmakers cannot put together a budget by the end of their regular session, sequester them. Being in cots, no lobbyists allowed in during sequestration, only emergency calls in and out. Instead of a per diem, their meals will be provided by a catering company that will competitively bid for the contract. I am guessing that the longest sequestration you will ever see will be about two weeks, and they will change their approaches when they realize that the end of the session is nearing.