Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
kevbone

The next big cuts in Washtington

Recommended Posts

Salary of the US President...$400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents...$180,000. Salary of House/Senate...$174,000. Salary of Speaker of House...$223,500. Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders...$193,400. Average US Salary...$33,000 to $77,000. HELLO! I think we found where the cuts should be made! They are supposed to be public servants; we're not supposed to be their slaves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that cutting their collective salaries is going to create some huge windfall savings package? It wouldn't amount to a hill of beans! The amount of money you're talking about saving is infinitesimally minuscule when considered in the larger context.

 

Here, this graphic of the recent federal budget negotiations might help to put things into perspective for you...

 

110406.budget.pie.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think that cutting their collective salaries is going to create some huge windfall savings package?

 

No I dont. It is the concept and idea behind it that we could move toward. Being a politian should be low paying job. If you want to be president....the you should not be allowed to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the thought behind the Framers' idea... a citizen government. You serve your term or two, then go back to your farm to work your land, or whatever else it was that you did before you got elected, and another citizen comes forth to govern for a while. We lost our way somewhere along the line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think that cutting their collective salaries is going to create some huge windfall savings package? It wouldn't amount to a hill of beans! The amount of money you're talking about saving is infinitesimally minuscule when considered in the larger context.

 

Here, this graphic of the recent federal budget negotiations might help to put things into perspective for you...

 

110406.budget.pie.jpg

 

And yet the D's scream about how terrible and deep the R's cuts are. LOL Yeah, that .7% merits the shrill histrionics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was the thought behind the Framers' idea... a citizen government. You serve your term or two, then go back to your farm to work your land, or whatever else it was that you did before you got elected, and another citizen comes forth to govern for a while. We lost our way somewhere along the line...

 

Yup......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet the D's scream about how terrible and deep the R's cuts are. LOL Yeah, that .7% merits the shrill histrionics!

 

Which 1% do you think is going to hurt the worst?

God, you're a fucking moron.

 

 

burn.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet the D's scream about how terrible and deep the R's cuts are. LOL Yeah, that .7% merits the shrill histrionics!

 

Which 1% do you think is going to hurt the worst?

God, you're a fucking moron.

 

 

burn.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Fuck off prole, you cock gobbler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a politian should be low paying job.

 

Right, so that only rich people can afford to be in office. Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a politian should be low paying job.

 

Right, so that only rich people can afford to be in office. Fail.

 

How do you figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a politian should be low paying job.

Right, so that only rich people can afford to be in office. Fail.

How do you figure?

If it was a low paying job, then nobody would want it. Unless they had a large supplemental income with which to support themselves while they were in office. Ergo, rich people. Are you always so dense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a politian should be low paying job.

Right, so that only rich people can afford to be in office. Fail.

How do you figure?

If it was a low paying job, then nobody would want it. Unless they had a large supplemental income with which to support themselves while they were in office. Ergo, rich people. Are you always so dense?

 

Or, they want to get a large supplemental income while in office. Let's really get the bribes going now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice graphics. We can pay the bill now or pay the bill later. It's going to hurt more the longer we wait to get our finances in order. The politicians almost all want to shunt the issue off down the road and let our kids deal with it. Here's the Ron Paul take.

 

http://www.infowars.com/the-nanny-state-cant-last/

 

"Ron Paul

Infowars.com

April 12, 2011

 

Last week, Congress and the administration refused to seriously consider the problem of government spending. Despite the fear-mongering, a government shutdown would not have been as bad as claimed.

 

It is encouraging that some in Washington seem to be insisting on reduced spending, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but only one step. We have miles to go before we can even come close to a solution, and it will involve completely redefining the role of government in our lives and on the world stage. A compromise was struck at the last minute, but until Democrats agree to rein in entitlement spending, and Republicans back off the blank checks to the military industrial complex, it all amounts to political gamesmanship.

 

 

Unfortunately, the compromises always seem to be just the opposite. Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives? Throughout history, empires have always overextended themselves through conquests and wealth transfers leading to eventual collapse, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union. We are headed in the same direction and it seems only the chaos of the collapse of the dollar will stop the spending spree. Arguing over funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR, though important, only shows that leadership in Washington either won’t face reality, or don’t understand how serious the problem is.

 

 

Of course, an actual government collapse would create serious problems for many people who have come to depend on government payments for healthcare, retirement income, their children’s education, and even food and housing. However, these so-called entitlement programs are unconstitutional to begin with and have engendered a culture of dependence on wealth transfer payments that is out of control. It concerns me greatly that instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to look reality squarely in the face and tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people’s lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised. We face trillions in deficits with any of the budgets under consideration. Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end and we are no longer working on “compromises” but a transition – to a sustainable way of life, one that respects the constitution, the rule of law and property rights."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a politian should be low paying job.

Right, so that only rich people can afford to be in office. Fail.

How do you figure?

If it was a low paying job, then nobody would want it.

 

Thank you for making my point. That is exactly right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's common to mythologize the 'gentile, gentlemen framers' as such, but, even a quick reading of that period reveals that American politics and the people who practice it have changed little over the centuries. The founding era, more than anything, was one long shouting match, conducted by the wealthy (if highly indebted) elite of the day, most of whom openly felt entitled to govern. The themes then would be familiar today: states versus federal rights, how to pay for the national debt (or whether to bother paying for it at all), whether to align with France or England, whether or not to have a national religion. The founders even swept huge issues under the rug - slavery for example. Congress actually passed a law banning the banning of slavery until 1812 - presumably long enough for the union to coalesce.

 

As now, politicians hired journalists to smear their rivals, as Jefferson did against Adams. Jefferson, not the most fiscally responsible person, wound up getting sued and publicly trashed by his factotum when he failed to pay the bill. Adams, for his part, then passed our first Sedition act, at the suggestion of his wife, to exact revenge against his political critics.

 

Nor were the founders immune to pomp - Washington regularly toured around town in a guilded white carriage drawn by six pure white draft horses.

 

At least today, congressmen don't generally shoot each other, as Burr did Hamilton in a then-illegal duel.

 

The idea that people or politics was any different back then is quaint, comforting, and completely unsupported by the copious written history our founders intentionally left behind to polish their historical legacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and regarding salaries...you generally get what you pay for. If the third world proves anything, its that politicians will seek backsheesh to supplement an inadequate salary. Being a congressman is expensive - lots of suits, travel, an apartment in DC. It's in the national interest to pay them competitively if we want them to focus on doing their job rather than scrounging for a few bucks wherever they can find it.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fun bit of facts to kick around that my pa-in-law just sent me:

 

According to the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, the lowest tax rates in the world as a percentage of GDP are:

1. Mexico: 17.5

2. Chile 18.2

3. United States: 24.0 (per capita income $37,500 - #3 worldwide)

4. Turkey: 24.6

5. Korea: 25.6

6. Ireland 27.8

7. Slovak Republic: 29.3

8. Greece: 29.4

9. Switzerland: 30.3

10. Spain: 30.7

 

Meanwhile, stats on the Top Tax rate in the world:

1. Denmark

Tax rate as percentage of GDP: 48.2

GDP: $309.60 billion

Total Population: 5.5 million (per capita income $31,210 -#8 worldwide)

Life Expectancy: 79

Unemployment: 3.3 percent

 

sooo....why would raising taxes be the end of the world again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, an actual government collapse would create serious problems for many people who have come to depend on government payments for healthcare, retirement income, their children’s education, and even food and housing. However, these so-called entitlement programs are unconstitutional to begin with and have engendered a culture of dependence on wealth transfer payments that is out of control. It concerns me greatly that instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to look reality squarely in the face and tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people’s lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised. We face trillions in deficits with any of the budgets under consideration. Keeping those promises is, sadly, just not one of our options in the long run. Better to admit the nanny state is coming to an end and we are no longer working on “compromises” but a transition – to a sustainable way of life, one that respects the constitution, the rule of law and property rights."

 

Yeah, 'cause that's what's wrong with this country, the welfare queens! Yawn. Can't these dim-bulbs come up with something original? Same shit, different decade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we are no longer working on “compromises” but a transition – to a sustainable way of life

 

as if the last 30 years, and several other periods also punctuated by market collapses, hadn't already amply shown that unfettered capitalism a la Ron Paul is anything but sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fun bit of facts to kick around that my pa-in-law just sent me:

 

According to the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, the lowest tax rates in the world as a percentage of GDP are:

1. Mexico: 17.5

2. Chile 18.2

3. United States: 24.0 (per capita income $37,500 - #3 worldwide)

4. Turkey: 24.6

5. Korea: 25.6

6. Ireland 27.8

7. Slovak Republic: 29.3

8. Greece: 29.4

9. Switzerland: 30.3

10. Spain: 30.7

 

Meanwhile, stats on the Top Tax rate in the world:

1. Denmark

Tax rate as percentage of GDP: 48.2

GDP: $309.60 billion

Total Population: 5.5 million (per capita income $31,210 -#8 worldwide)

Life Expectancy: 79

Unemployment: 3.3 percent

 

sooo....why would raising taxes be the end of the world again?

 

And which "tax" is that? Income tax alone, or all taxes together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody finds it odd that people posturing as anti-establishment types like Paul (and Billcoe) end up regurgitating the same neoliberal drivel that Reaganites and the corporate media have been spewing for 30 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×