GatewayRedbirds.com

Do you want to explain the 43% comment or do you want to complain about message boards?

_________________
We want information. Information.

I see your point, and I agree.

I went and saw the Illinois rep. for the Quad City area speak. He is a Tea Party guy - Bobby Schilling.

I had heard the spiel before, so I was not at all surprised by his talking points about the need to reign in spending in Washington. He knew the stats about spending and the deficit by heart.

Then he discussed our local issues. Evidently, despite all the HUGE spending cuts that need to happen, none of the projects in our district need to be sacrificed! What a relief! He said we still need to fund our new Mississippi River interstate bridge (which is going to cost over $1 billion in the end), we need to keep our Arsenal base open and expand it, we need to extend tax credits to local companies adding jobs, and we need to expand Ag & Ethanol subsidies for farmers.

So it must be that it is the other districts around the country that are going to sacrifice on our behalf. Let me be the first to say: thanks everyone!

_________________

Well, the 43% part is easy. It's also probably the equivalent of 'change' or '99%'. The US is printing (forgive the term) 43 cents for every dollar spent.

He might default to cutting each individual program by 43% if asked, but if you listen to him talk, there are certainly priorities he has established. He constantly talks about cutting military spending, ending nation building, etc. Then ending the war on drugs. Then cleaning up immigration by giving them working visas so they can be taxed. Ending wasteful departments in the feeral government. Blah blah blah.

And, you're the one who said 'cut everything by x percent' not the original post.

_________________

Here is another idea I've floated before:
The U.S. Should Require All Citizens to Vote

_________________

If the Soviet Union did it, it has to be good, right?

_________________

If voting were important they would make it illegal.

_________________

I think the suggestion is that using a hard number to cut anything by is kind of a short cut instead of looking at each program and cutting based on value added. Cutting 43% of defense spending might not be enough while cutting 43% of food stamps may not be the best economic choice. Picking an arbitrary amount to cut by for an arbitrary number of programs is a way to avoid having to make hard decisions. Like zero tolerance policies.


I'm not sure compulsary voting is the right the move, but an election "week" or national holliday at least would be good. Allow more who want to vote, especially in non-presidential cycles, to get to the polls and voice their opinion.

Also, why are your images black?

_________________

I agree with that. Every American should have the "right" to vote, meaning having the time to do so should be available to everybody.


Michael made them for me. I found them in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11

_________________

Again, I think you need to understand what the original post said. Because you're not arguing what is being said.



Then greenback comes along and says



It's not arguing what RX said.

Johnson's said plenty of times overall the federal budget needs to be slashed by 43%. He may even use it as a default answer to questions that he doesn't have a finalized plan for regarding a policy. But when you listen to him talk, you certainly don't get the feelig he's going to start writing checks for 57 cents to everyone instead of giving them their normal dollar. He starts with military spending. Almost always. And, when you listen to him, you get the feeling it'll be a bigger cut than 43%. For instance, I heard him talking about the 100,000 soldiers in Europe. It went something like "Do we need 100K soldiers in Europe? No. Hell do we even need 57K? Probably not"

If you all continue with this ridiculous argument that cutting every program 43% is a horrible idea and shows a lack of a plan and an inability to make decisions and that is what his plan in, then I'm going to start saying Obama thinks the Star Spangled Banner needs to be 'changed' and isn't an American.

_________________

I read exactly what was said and I don't appreciate the condescending tone.



Your quote. Right there. The way that's worded suggests that most programs, your words and not mine, need to be cut by 43%. Not that spending needs to be cut by 43% in total, which is a different matter. Greenback said that cutting 43% from every program is away to make those cuts without making decisions. He is correct.

How is it ridiculous when it's your words? If you meant it differently than it's worded, I understand that and it's fine. Clear up the confusion instead of continuing to quote the same misleading sentence and say there's a ridiculous argument. Please choose:

1. Johnson's position is that federal spending should be reduced by 43% to be met with varying cuts across many programs.
2. Johnson's position is that federal spendign should be reduced by 43% by cutting most programs by 43% exactly.

2 is a ridiculous position that avoids making decisions. That's what you stated his position as above. 1 is at least...comprehensible.

_________________