Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://wimp.com/budgetcuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good point, but not entirely accurate.

The cuts are relatively small, however, in the larger scheme of things. In total, the $775 million in detailed cuts fall far short of demands by congressional Republicans and will do little toward tackling the deficit, which is estimated to be $1.5 trillion this year by the Congressional Budget Office. The cuts are in addition to a five-year spending freeze which the administration says will save $400 billion over the next decade.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... 012-budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't care who you are... that's an awesome video and regardless of how accurate it is - the point it makes is valid and powerful...

Obama and the Dems have laid so much debt on the future generations that I think it maybe already too late but Stossel has some ideas... but notice even with all these cuts it only puts a dent in the debt problem.

==

JOHN STOSSEL: I Can Balance the Budget
foxnews.com ^ | 3 Feb 2010 | John Stossel

The Congressional Budget Office says the current year's budget deficit will be a record $1.5 trillion. It also says that over the next decade we're on track for annual deficits of "only" $768 billion. I suspect the CBO has hired Rosy Scenario to do the bookkeeping, but let's take that number at face value.

I'm now going to balance the budget, with the help of some recent guests on my TV show.
I'll begin with things I'm most eager to cut. Let's privatize air traffic control. Canada did it, and it works better. Then privatize Amtrak. Get rid of all subsidies for rail. That'll save $12 billion.

End subsidies for public broadcasting, like NPR. Cancel the Small Business Administration. Repeal the Davis-Bacon rules under which the government pays union-set wages to workers on federal construction projects. Cut foreign aid by half (although we should probably get rid of all of it). So far, that's $20 billion. Oops. That doesn't dent the deficit. We have to do much more.

So eliminate the U.S. Education Department. We'd save $94 billion. Federal involvement doesn't improve education. It gets in the way.

Agriculture subsidies cost us $30 billion a year. Let's get rid of them. They distort the economy. We should also eliminate Housing and Urban Development. That's $53 billion more.

Who needs the Energy Department and its $20 billion sinkhole? The free market should determine energy investments.

And let's end the war on drugs. In effect, it's a $47 billion subsidy for thugs in the black market.
I've already cut more than six times more than President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address. His freeze of nondefense discretionary spending would save only $40 billion.

But my cuts still total only $246 billion...

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Chizzang wrote:I don't care who you are... that's an awesome video and regardless of how accurate it is - the point it makes is valid and powerful...

AND that little film is funny - and sad - as he11!!!

Bronco wrote:Obama and the Dems have laid so much debt on the future generations that I think it maybe already too late but Stossel has some ideas... but notice even with all these cuts it only puts a dent in the debt problem.

==

JOHN STOSSEL: I Can Balance the Budget
foxnews.com ^ | 3 Feb 2010 | John Stossel

The Congressional Budget Office says the current year's budget deficit will be a record $1.5 trillion. It also says that over the next decade we're on track for annual deficits of "only" $768 billion. I suspect the CBO has hired Rosy Scenario to do the bookkeeping, but let's take that number at face value. ...

+2

+3



John Stossel makes me happy

Chizzang wrote:+3



John Stossel makes me happy

Kumbaya!

Here's the link to the full Stossel column

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/ ... ce-budget/

I love this part:

As the bureaucrats complain about proposals to make tiny cuts, it's good to remember that disciplined government could make cuts that get us to a surplus in one year. But even a timid Congress could make swift progress if it wanted to. If it just froze spending at today's levels, it would almost balance the budget by 2017. If spending were limited to 1 percent growth each year, the budget would balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington would limit spending growth to about 2 percent a year, the red ink would almost disappear in 10 years.

Too bad the cowards in Washington won't do it.

HI54UNI wrote:I love this part:

As the bureaucrats complain about proposals to make tiny cuts, it's good to remember that disciplined government could make cuts that get us to a surplus in one year. But even a timid Congress could make swift progress if it wanted to. If it just froze spending at today's levels, it would almost balance the budget by 2017. If spending were limited to 1 percent growth each year, the budget would balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington would limit spending growth to about 2 percent a year, the red ink would almost disappear in 10 years.

Too bad the cowards in Washington won't do it.

Part of the Obama proposal is to freeze spending for five years. I'd link to it, but I already did in my above post.

Oh, and Stossel is a complete libertarian utopia believing tool.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:I love this part:

As the bureaucrats complain about proposals to make tiny cuts, it's good to remember that disciplined government could make cuts that get us to a surplus in one year. But even a timid Congress could make swift progress if it wanted to. If it just froze spending at today's levels, it would almost balance the budget by 2017. If spending were limited to 1 percent growth each year, the budget would balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington would limit spending growth to about 2 percent a year, the red ink would almost disappear in 10 years.

Too bad the cowards in Washington won't do it.

Part of the Obama proposal is to freeze spending for five years. I'd link to it, but I already did in my above post.

Oh, and Stossel is a complete libertarian utopia believing tool.

He's damn entertaining...
and applies common sense to complex issues in a way I really enjoy

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Part of the Obama proposal is to freeze spending for five years. I'd link to it, but I already did in my above post.

Oh, and Stossel is a complete libertarian utopia believing tool.

He's damn entertaining...
and applies common sense to complex issues in a way I really enjoy

The libertarian view always makes sense on the surface. It's the ultimate pipe dream.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chizzang wrote:I don't care who you are... that's an awesome video and regardless of how accurate it is - the point it makes is valid and powerful...

I don't think it was accurate. He was off by about the width of his snipper blade.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
He's damn entertaining...
and applies common sense to complex issues in a way I really enjoy

The libertarian view always makes sense on the surface. It's the ultimate pipe dream.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True enough...
but it's always entertaining

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
The libertarian view always makes sense on the surface. It's the ultimate pipe dream.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True enough...
but it's always entertaining

Agreed. I find the guys writing for reason.com to be very compelling sometimes.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
True enough...
but it's always entertaining

Agreed. I find the guys writing for reason.com to be very compelling sometimes.

The problem is NO politicians think like Stossel
If we had a handful who did - actually if we had like 25% of the senate and 50% of the House thinking like that we'd be a hell of a lot better off

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed. I find the guys writing for reason.com to be very compelling sometimes.

The problem is NO politicians think like Stossel
If we had a handful who did - actually if we had like 25% of the senate and 50% of the House thinking like that we'd be a hell of a lot better off

We pretty much already do.

And when someone in 1994 says something like this:

"I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market."

--ABC News correspondent John Stossel (Oregonian, 10/26/94)

And he hasn't learned anything since, you RUN LIKE HELL.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
The problem is NO politicians think like Stossel
If we had a handful who did - actually if we had like 25% of the senate and 50% of the House thinking like that we'd be a hell of a lot better off

We pretty much already do.

And when someone in 1994 says something like this:

"I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market."

--ABC News correspondent John Stossel (Oregonian, 10/26/94)

And he hasn't learned anything since, you RUN LIKE HELL.

Even more words of wisdom from Stossel.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
We pretty much already do.

And when someone in 1994 says something like this:

"I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market."

--ABC News correspondent John Stossel (Oregonian, 10/26/94)

And he hasn't learned anything since, you RUN LIKE HELL.

Even more words of wisdom from Stossel.

Thank you Mr. Greenspan.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Even more words of wisdom from Stossel.

Thank you Mr. Greenspan.

Greenspan?

It's more like Mr. Friedman, but thank you anyway, Mr. Alinsky.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Thank you Mr. Greenspan.

Greenspan?

It's more like Mr. Friedman, but thank you anyway, Mr. Alinsky.

Come on now Baldy, you know Greenspan was one the chief evangelists of the magic of the free market. But then:

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Greenspan?

It's more like Mr. Friedman, but thank you anyway, Mr. Alinsky.

Come on now Baldy, you know Greenspan was one the chief evangelists of the magic of the free market. But then:

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

...and Mr. Obama was a chief evangelist of the free market in his speech today to the US Chamber of Commerce. Your point?

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Come on now Baldy, you know Greenspan was one the chief evangelists of the magic of the free market. But then:

...and Mr. Obama was a chief evangelist of the free market in his speech today to the US Chamber of Commerce. Your point?

What is your point in bringing up Obama? You seem to have an unhealthy obsession going on there.