carguy123 wrote: They've made bigger inroads in the political forum in a couple of years than the Libertarians have done in decades.
No they haven't. They're being played like cheap fiddles and used as plausibly deniable attack dogs. The Libertarians are just smart enough to not let that happen to them.
Shutdown averted. President Obama is speaking now, more details to come.
$39billion in cuts
Well I guess that means my upcoming "vacation" may be spoiled.
Let's say that our economy completely colapses in the very near future and our dollars can be traded in for about 3.2cents of the new currency. Does anyone have any good ideas for what to invest our dollars in now that might have real value? Mmmmm, goats maybe???
No seriously, has anyone given this any thought? It's beginning to appear that it's too late to be concerned about the deficit. You would think that the decision makers don't have any children or grand children . . . or, maybe they just don't care whatsoever how they will have to live.
Both parties have been kicking the can down the road so long that we may have no choice but to emulate Ireland. Thanks, guys. And girls.
About government waste: a few years ago the local Forest Service 'detailed' a new person to oversee the local dirt bike trail system. Duringt he 'meet and greet' iy became quickly obvious she was completely clueless about OHV in general; during conversations where I and others tried to get her up to speed on what we did I discovered that her specialty in the FS was interpretive basketweaving. No I did not make that up. It's not a joke. That's what the money and training she received went for.
Graefin10 wrote: Let's say that our economy completely colapses in the very near future and our dollars can be traded in for about 3.2cents of the new currency. Does anyone have any good ideas for what to invest our dollars in now that might have real value? Mmmmm, goats maybe??? No seriously, has anyone given this any thought? It's beginning to appear that it's too late to be concerned about the deficit. You would think that the decision makers don't have any children or grand children . . . or, maybe they just don't care whatsoever how they will have to live.
Tangible asserts. Got kids? Buy cloths and shoes for them for the next several years. You have to buy them anyway, just buy them in advance. If the economy tanks as least your children won't be wearing rags. Buy them for yourself while you are at it. As far as investments, if it gets that bad we are screwed. It won't matter where your money is because the US economy will probably drag the rest of the world down with it.
In reply to Graefin10:
If you have cash laying around and can afford it, pay off everything you can. If cash does become worthless, you'll have assets. Get some land and learn to raise your own food. And do NOT receive the mark.
Graefin10 wrote: Let's say that our economy completely colapses in the very near future and our dollars can be traded in for about 3.2cents of the new currency. Does anyone have any good ideas for what to invest our dollars in now that might have real value? Mmmmm, goats maybe??? No seriously, has anyone given this any thought? It's beginning to appear that it's too late to be concerned about the deficit. You would think that the decision makers don't have any children or grand children . . . or, maybe they just don't care whatsoever how they will have to live.
Ammo. Lots and lots of ammo. And cigarettes. But more importantly the ammo. I can make my own booze.
The Tea Party Movement isn't a 'party'.
It has no organisation or representation. Any person or politician who claims to represent the 'Tea Partiers' is an opportunist. The 'movement' is not a 'party.' The name confuses people who don't know history or are too wrapped up in political sycophancy, looking to encite.
It is a Movement, not an organised political body. It is a movement formed of people who generally speaking will put all social issues on a back burner and instead have major priority on spending responsibility.
The Tea Party Movement core has no pre-disposition to either party, despite the Democrats insistance that it is nothing but a fringe of the right (its only working out that way because they lost power in the last election). The tea party will abandon Republicans in force if a democrat or a Libertarian comes along with a more believable fiscal responsibility platform.
To upset Libertarians who think the Tea Party should belong to them: you also have social issues the core of the movement doesn't care about, otherwise they would have flocked to you.
...just sayin`
madmallard wrote: It is a Movement, not an organised political body.
You laid out exactly what I hoped it was. It turned out to be something quite different. You're absolutely right to say it isn't a party. But I'm afraid it absolutely is an organized political body started with a specific agenda in mind. The notion of it being an organic, grass-roots movement isn't completely inaccurate, but is a bit of an idealization of the reality.
And, I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think it likely we'll see significant numbers who self identify as a "Democrat" start self identifying as "Tea Party" supporter. Weather they subverted a movement or not, people like Michelle Bachman have become the face of the Tea Party. She doesn't offer much for a Democrat to find common ground with, and she goes out of her way to flaunt issues that anyone even slightly left of center find distasteful.
The Tea Party started as a loosely organized group who felt neither party was fiscally responsible, they even said as much. The liberal media started trying to hang them around the Republican's neck like the Ancient Mariner's albatross, hoping something crazy would happen (remember the furor over alleged assault weapons and alleged barring of blacks from the meetings?). Fox News saw an opportunity to grab some headlines/ratings and completed the task. Along the way, the Republican Party saw an opportunity to ride their grassroots movement back into the majority and the rest is what we see now.
So another promising possibility for real meaningful change gets thrown on the ash heap of history.
Back in the day the Reform Party had a pretty good shot at changing business as usual, that is before Ross got taken to the woodshed.
Curmudgeon wrote: So another promising possibility for real meaningful change gets thrown on the ash heap of history.
Just because the R's & D's are threatened, and responded in their predictable ways, does not negate the fact that there are a LOT of us who still believe that NEITHER party is serving us.
Graefin10 wrote: Let's say that our economy completely colapses in the very near future and our dollars can be traded in for about 3.2cents of the new currency. Does anyone have any good ideas for what to invest our dollars in now that might have real value? Mmmmm, goats maybe??? No seriously, has anyone given this any thought? It's beginning to appear that it's too late to be concerned about the deficit. You would think that the decision makers don't have any children or grand children . . . or, maybe they just don't care whatsoever how they will have to live.
I've given it a lot of thought. I just got laid off. And I'm not a factory worker..I was a middle class professional (cable TV broadcast technician). Even those jobs are being outsourced now. My plan? "Investment" is for the birds-or at least for those making six-figures a year. Liquidate it all (including the 401k, if the dollar fails it'll be worthless anyway), pay the taxes (stay "off the radar"), and take whatever's left and buy a place to live. I realize that I'm lucky. I've been vested in my 401k for about 25yrs. IIRC, and will still have enough for a "modular home" (which I've discovered is just a double-wide trailer on a permanent foundation) after paying all the taxes. Yeah, I know they decompose faster than a real house, but since I can do so much repair myself, I figure I'll spend less on doing so than I would paying on the morgage every year, or paying rent on someplace that will never actually belong to me. Without a morgage/rent payment, I can live on less than half of the salary I used to have. Also, SWMBO just got a job as a detention officer at a county jail. With the crime rate going up (as it does in every economic downturn), she won't have to worry about being laid off until that county gets rich enough to invite a privatized detention company into the place.
Apologies in advance for blowing up your Ironymeter..but the more I look, the more I see people on the political left (like me) becoming the "New Survivalists". I've got a buddy from where I used to work that's heavily involved in the "community supported agriculture" movement. He's already offered me a work share at the farm just for repairing their irrigation equipment/tractors/etc. (and now, I'm thinking of taking it!).
Last week, he sent me a Facebook message asking what I know about guns.
It's a weird world right now..
And really, if the whole thing does go belly up, the "decision makers" won't have these problems. Taking those donations means their children & grandchildren won't ever have to face what the rest of us might have to, anymore than the CEO of a large corporation. They don't care about us.
EDIT: Find and read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X
Curmudgeon wrote: The Tea Party started as a loosely organized group who felt neither party was fiscally responsible, they even said as much.
I don't know what or who the Tea Party was when they started. But I know this- in those days you and I had never heard of them. Nobody had until the Koch brothers put them on the map. Any notion that this was a grass-roots organization went out the window at that point. But don't mourn the loss. You still would have never heard of them if it hadn't happened.
I think what we need is Democrats who will come out and say "you know what, we really do need to do something about Medicade". If the Democrats do it, their "base" may believe that things must have gotten bad. At the same time, some Republicans need to come out and say "you know, we really aren't collecting enough taxes" and start getting a few bucks from the 50% who aren't paying ANY federal income tax. Again, if they do it, maybe their "base" will believe it needed to be done.
But if "TEA" really means "Taxed Enough Already" and they're going to stick to that, then they won't play any roll in any move forward. This business they just did. What, we're supposed to think they solved something? What did they cut, 40 Billion? What percentage of the deficit is that? I just don't think it's realistic to think we can save our way out of this hole. It's like losing your job and saying "well, guess we'll have to eat out a little less often". It's just not going to work. We need some money coming in. And in the United States, money comes in through taxes.
Who knows, maybe the Tea folk will push so hard that some huge hunk of Medicade will get cut. But if they do, no one with an (R) after their name will get elected in the next cycle. People forget, favorable ratings for the Republicans were dismal when they were swept into power. It hadn't been but two short years since Obama won in a landslide. If they think that can't turn on them just as fast they're delusional. How did Obama get on the outs? Too much too fast. Now we hear the Republicans demanding historic cuts. Really? When Grandma can't go to the doctor, and someone is yacking about how they're going to cut her Social Security next they'll bounce just as fast.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: The Tea Party started as a loosely organized group who felt neither party was fiscally responsible, they even said as much.But if "TEA" really means "Taxed Enough Already" and they're going to stick to that, then they won't play any roll in any move forward. This business they just did. What, we're supposed to think they solved something?
There we go again. There was no tea party victory, despite what the mass media talking heads would have you believe.
I'm not touching the "TEA" discussion.. Ha.
But here's what we need to do with the budget etc...
Done... We currently want hamburger service on a "hydrolized soy protein" budget.
friedgreencorrado wrote: ... will still have enough for a "modular home" (which I've discovered is just a double-wide trailer on a permanent foundation) ...
Good news! Modular homes are not double wides.
Modular homes are built like stick built (conventional) homes in a factory, then moved to the site in big pieces.
Double wides use entirely different (inferior) construction techniques.
Now, back on subject...
SVreX wrote:friedgreencorrado wrote: ... will still have enough for a "modular home" (which I've discovered is just a double-wide trailer on a permanent foundation) ...Good news! Modular homes are not double wides. Modular homes are built like stick built (conventional) homes in a factory, then moved to the site in big pieces. Double wides use entirely different (inferior) construction techniques. Now, back on subject...
btw.. my friends are building a modular home, and it is amazing what you can get and what can be done for not a lot of money, when your house is built in a factory..
huge-O-chavez wrote:SVreX wrote:btw.. my friends are building a modular home, and it is amazing what you can get and what can be done for not a lot of money, when your house is built in a factory..friedgreencorrado wrote: ... will still have enough for a "modular home" (which I've discovered is just a double-wide trailer on a permanent foundation) ...Good news! Modular homes are not double wides. Modular homes are built like stick built (conventional) homes in a factory, then moved to the site in big pieces. Double wides use entirely different (inferior) construction techniques. Now, back on subject...
Seriously! I have seen some flat out amazing modular homes!
Absolutely. I've been living in a nice, modest modular for 12 years at 9000 feet in Colorado, and it's every bit as well built as site-constructed. 2x6 stud walls, fully building code compliant, and because it was somewhat (but not dramatically) less expensive than site-built, it's paid for. A quality modular can be a good thing.
Also, a couple of random thoughts (and I'm an independent, and generally don't discuss politics).
1) Remember 13 years ago when we had a surplus and were debating whether to cut taxes or pay off the national debt - in a Democratic administration that seriously cut the size of government? Seems like a parallel universe today. Gee, what happened when those spend-without-eonough-income-to-pay-for-it Republicans took over?
2) This wasn't the first time a shutdown was threatened. I'm retired Department of Interior (geologist in my former life), and back in the '80's (I think - I've slept since then) we actually had a full shutdown for about a week. The world didn't end, the sky didn't fall, and when the idiots on both sides of the aisle passed yet another continuing resolution, things went back to normal. It wasn't too unusual to go through an entire fiscal year on continuing resolutions.
The bottom line is, either you cut expenditures or raise income, just like any household or business, and it will probably require both - so the hard-liners on both sides will have to compromise, a word that no one will use or consider in these contentious times. Unless we learn to compromise, we're in deep doo-doo. If we work together (gasp!) we can fix things, but it will take time.
Jim Pettengill wrote: Absolutely. I've been living in a nice, modest modular for 12 years at 9000 feet in Colorado, and it's every bit as well built as site-constructed.
Must be something about Colorado. Your post is spot on. (I would take a little issue with the implication that a shut down is no bid deal. I know some folks who would have been devastated by it, but otherwise...)
And I've seen some dang nice modular homes too. When we lived in CA, I used to tell my wife I wasn't worried if an earthquake took out our house. I'd pop a nice modular home on there in a heartbeat.
Depends on how long a shutdown would last. The one we had only lasted 4 or 5 days - a short enough time that after someone at OMB (Office of Management and Budget) did a quick analysis of how much time and money it would take to figure out who was critical and stayed on, who was out on annual or sick leave, who actually got furloughed, etc (early computer days), they found it was far cheaper to just pay everybody their regular salary and move on - so we all got unexpected paid days off. Didn't know it at the time, though, and we all prepared to be out without pay for two or three weeks. And were ready to file for our unemployment.
This time probably would have been worse, since nobody wants to budge to achieve common ground anymore.
93EXCivic wrote: Why is defunding Planned Parenthood such a big deal? I mean a program actually helping people. Let's cut it right away. That is too much like socialism.
Because we are berkeleying broke. Even if the entire focus of Planned Parenthood was to give puppydogs and lollipops to orphans, we still can't afford it.
"Planned parenthood helping people" depends on if you're the one in the stirrups or in the stainless shop vac.
You'll need to log in to post.
