House GOP Plan to cut $2.5 Trillion

[mebison]

Interesting list.

As much as I would LOVE rail access all around the country, much of the country just isn't set up well for it. If we're going to invest in it, we need to be smart and put it places where it will be the most useful, not just cast trains about as pork barrel, feel-good handouts. First priority should be connecting reasonably close cities (2-3 hours) with large populations and the LOCAL mass transit to get you somewhere once you are off the train. The Iowa connection previously described earlier is a bad idea because its a train to nowhere.

[mebison]

Some of the agencies on the list may be worth cutting, especially if they are redundant or could be handled by another agency. i.e. Cut the International Doing Something Agency if that work could be handled by the Depart of Doing Stuff.

Also, call me a cynic, but its pretty easy to introduce lots of cuts that will be popular to your constituents when you are outnumbered enough that you know they won't pass and you don't have to deal with the long-term implications....

[YoUDeeMan]

Yeah, and NPR is accurate and non partisan..

Let's see some concrete evidence (you know, with a link) that NPR is grossly inaccurate.

Inaccuracy doesn't have anything to do with it. I can demonstrate a left leaning agenda without a single inaccuracy...I would simply chose certain stories to tell (while ignoring others). I could also invite two guests, one conservative and one liberal, to have them "debate" a subject, while allowing one to use certain words without challenging them.

In the end, NPR stories usually have a left leaning bias to them...it is a reflection of their commentators and staff. It is really quite obvious to anyone who listens.

Oh, guess who is still employed at NPR after saying the following:

“It’s safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo“.

“I admit sadly that it was only after I saw the shooter’s gringo surname that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives…”


I listen to NPR because they do provide some depth to some interesting off the beaten path stories. However, if you deny their left leaning bias, then you are either not being honest or you are simply retarded.

Oh, and I could easily say goodbye to NPR....you can find the same stuff on the internet. NPR isn't needed and should not be funded by the taxpayers.

[Grizalltheway]

Let's see some concrete evidence (you know, with a link) that NPR is grossly inaccurate.

Inaccuracy doesn't have anything to do with it. I can demonstrate a left leaning agenda without a single inaccuracy...I would simply chose certain stories to tell (while ignoring others). I could also invite two guests, one conservative and one liberal, to have them "debate" a subject, while allowing one to use certain words without challenging them.

In the end, NPR stories usually have a left leaning bias to them...it is a reflection of their commentators and staff. It is really quite obvious to anyone who listens.

Oh, guess who is still employed at NPR after saying the following:

“It’s safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo“.

“I admit sadly that it was only after I saw the shooter’s gringo surname that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives…”


I listen to NPR because they do provide some depth to some interesting off the beaten path stories. However, if you deny their left leaning bias, then you are either not being honest or you are simply retarded.

Oh, and I could easily say goodbye to NPR....you can find the same stuff on the internet. NPR isn't needed and should not be funded by the taxpayers.

1) You can certainly argue that their commentators and staff are left-leaning, I just don't personally believe that its as evident in their actual reporting as BDK would lead you to believe.

2) There are still plenty of people who rely on NPR and PBS for news and entertainment (this fits in nicely with your argument that too many poor people expect to have cable TV, etc)

3) Regardless of who it was, that's a disgusting thing to say.

[Chemhen]

Oh, and I could easily say goodbye to NPR....you can find the same stuff on the internet. NPR isn't needed and should not be funded by the taxpayers.

Not everyone has the internet.

And, by the way, with no NPR...where am I gonna get my Car Talk?!

[Grizalltheway]

Oh, and I could easily say goodbye to NPR....you can find the same stuff on the internet. NPR isn't needed and should not be funded by the taxpayers.

Not everyone has the internet.

And, by the way, with no NPR...where am I gonna get my Car Talk?!

Game, set, match.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Not everyone has the internet.

And, by the way, with no NPR...where am I gonna get my Car Talk?!

Game, set, match.

Except that the quality shows like the aforementioned would be picked up or would continue as podcasts. Those kind of shows do it because they love what they do and they wouldn't stop I don't think. I used to love listening to that show.

[SuperHornet]

Interesting list.

As much as I would LOVE rail access all around the country, much of the country just isn't set up well for it. If we're going to invest in it, we need to be smart and put it places where it will be the most useful, not just cast trains about as pork barrel, feel-good handouts. First priority should be connecting reasonably close cities (2-3 hours) with large populations and the LOCAL mass transit to get you somewhere once you are off the train. The Iowa connection previously described earlier is a bad idea because its a train to nowhere.

Question: If a high speed train connecting two large cities passes close by a small place, should the train stop or bypass it? Should a place be cut off just because it's tiny? Interesting to think about. Knowing Cali the way I do, the tiny places will get short shrift because L.A. makes the rules.

[Grizalltheway]

Interesting list.

As much as I would LOVE rail access all around the country, much of the country just isn't set up well for it. If we're going to invest in it, we need to be smart and put it places where it will be the most useful, not just cast trains about as pork barrel, feel-good handouts. First priority should be connecting reasonably close cities (2-3 hours) with large populations and the LOCAL mass transit to get you somewhere once you are off the train. The Iowa connection previously described earlier is a bad idea because its a train to nowhere.

Question: If a high speed train connecting two large cities passes close by a small place, should the train stop or bypass it? Should a place be cut off just because it's tiny? Interesting to think about. Knowing Cali the way I do, the tiny places will get short shrift because L.A. makes the rules.

That's how it is in Europa. Regular-speed trains will make stops in quite a few towns/villages, but the high-speed lines connect the majors cities with only a couple of stops in between.

[BDKJMU]

Interesting list.

As much as I would LOVE rail access all around the country, much of the country just isn't set up well for it. If we're going to invest in it, we need to be smart and put it places where it will be the most useful, not just cast trains about as pork barrel, feel-good handouts. First priority should be connecting reasonably close cities (2-3 hours) with large populations and the LOCAL mass transit to get you somewhere once you are off the train. The Iowa connection previously described earlier is a bad idea because its a train to nowhere.

Question: If a high speed train connecting two large cities passes close by a small place, should the train stop or bypass it? Should a place be cut off just because it's tiny? Interesting to think about. Knowing Cali the way I do, the tiny places will get short shrift because L.A. makes the rules.

Kind of defeats the purpose of high speed if it has to stop in every po-dunk town.

[D1B]

Lovin all the conks now advocating for high speed rail.

Conks - wrong on just about everything. Problem is, someone is typically dead or something is destroyed before this fact is proven accurate.

[houndawg]

Eliminate health care for Federal employees and fund high-speed rail with the savings.

Surely our republican friends feel a little embarrassed about having the best care the taxpayers can pay for for while voting to withhold it from folks that just wants to have what they have.


It would be interesting to be able to compare the health care plans/costs of all of the victims of the Arizona tragedy. Anybody care to hazard a guess as to which of the surviving victims won't go bankrupt from this event?

[89Hen]

Their office buildings are built with tax payer dollars too.

[danefan]

Their office buildings are built with tax payer dollars too.

Goldman Sachs build two headquarter buldings with taxpayer money.

Jersey City


Built with huge NJ tax credits pre-9/11

Manhattan

Built with NY/NYC tax creidts post-9/11 to help stablize all the business from moving out of the financial sector.

[89Hen]

Built with huge NJ tax credits pre-9/11

Built with NY/NYC tax creidts post-9/11 to help stablize all the business from moving out of the financial sector.

So both come with a HUGE asterisk as to being built with "tax payer dollars".

[danefan]

Built with huge NJ tax credits pre-9/11

Built with NY/NYC tax creidts post-9/11 to help stablize all the business from moving out of the financial sector.

So both come with a HUGE asterisk as to being built with "tax payer dollars".

Why? Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were needed to subsidize those huge tax credits.

BTW - I'm totally fine with it in GS's case. The NJ building brought some crediblitiy to Jersey City's rebuild. And no one could have known 9/11 would cause that many companies to try and move out of lower Manhattan. So GS building a headquarters in NYC using taxpayer funding was necessary as well.

[89Hen]

So both come with a HUGE asterisk as to being built with "tax payer dollars".

Why? Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were needed to subsidize those huge tax credits.

The one deal was made to keep them in Manhattan. This would be akin to saying that taxpayers are paying for your mortgage because you get to write off the interest on your taxes. Every year the Fed threatens to take that tax deduction away, but they know what it would do the housing market. NYC and the Feds decided it was more important to keep Goldman in Manhattan near the WTC site than to have them take their building elsewhere. Is this really any different than a city/state deciding to help pay for a new stadium for a sports franchise?

[kalm]

Built with huge NJ tax credits pre-9/11

Built with NY/NYC tax creidts post-9/11 to help stablize all the business from moving out of the financial sector.

So both come with a HUGE asterisk as to being built with "tax payer dollars".

Not to mention those tax dollars were really GS's all along, so instead of stealing from GS to give to the less productive, we're really just allowing them to keep what's rightfully theirs.

[dbackjon]

We all know Corporate America is the biggest receiver of welfare in America - just either too proud to acknowledge it, or paid to say otherwise.

[89Hen]

We all know Corporate America is the biggest receiver of welfare in America

That's just an incorrect statement.

[kalm]

We all know Corporate America is the biggest receiver of welfare in America

That's just an incorrect statement.

It's precious that some of the "small government, libertarian" conks don't get this.

Kudo's to Cluck for not being one of these.

[Baldy]

Eliminate health care for Federal employees and fund high-speed rail with the savings.

Surely our republican friends feel a little embarrassed about having the best care the taxpayers can pay for for while voting to withhold it from folks that just wants to have what they have.


It would be interesting to be able to compare the health care plans/costs of all of the victims of the Arizona tragedy. Anybody care to hazard a guess as to which of the surviving victims won't go bankrupt from this event?

Actually, it was the Republicans who tried to put a provision into Obamacare where Congress would be subject to the same health care as us ordinary peons. Do you want to guess who killed that provision?

[mebison]

Interesting list.

As much as I would LOVE rail access all around the country, much of the country just isn't set up well for it. If we're going to invest in it, we need to be smart and put it places where it will be the most useful, not just cast trains about as pork barrel, feel-good handouts. First priority should be connecting reasonably close cities (2-3 hours) with large populations and the LOCAL mass transit to get you somewhere once you are off the train. The Iowa connection previously described earlier is a bad idea because its a train to nowhere.

Question: If a high speed train connecting two large cities passes close by a small place, should the train stop or bypass it? Should a place be cut off just because it's tiny? Interesting to think about. Knowing Cali the way I do, the tiny places will get short shrift because L.A. makes the rules.

Yes. When "fair to everyone" becomes "useless to anyone" then it becomes a waste of everyone's money. Small places can still benefit by having a point closer to drive to and cheaper to park at then in the large cities themselves.

[danefan]

Why? Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were needed to subsidize those huge tax credits.

The one deal was made to keep them in Manhattan. This would be akin to saying that taxpayers are paying for your mortgage because you get to write off the interest on your taxes. Every year the Fed threatens to take that tax deduction away, but they know what it would do the housing market. NYC and the Feds decided it was more important to keep Goldman in Manhattan near the WTC site than to have them take their building elsewhere. Is this really any different than a city/state deciding to help pay for a new stadium for a sports franchise?

Its different then the home mortgage interested deduction in my eyes, but I can see your point. Some of your mortgage interest is subsidized but only to the extent of your federal tax rate. One is a deduction. the other is a credit. Huge $$$ difference which you know.

GS owes NYS and NJ and the Feds tons of tax money at the end of the year. Lets say $100 to make it easy. The tax credits they got for the buildings are akin to GS paying their taxes ot the gov't and the gov't turning around giving them their $100 back. These need to be subsidized by other taxpayer money.

And no, it is no different then a city/state helping to build a private stadium (unless it is done by way of a specific bond offering (which the Yankees used), which IMO isn't the same.). Taxpayer money.

[kalm]

Eliminate health care for Federal employees and fund high-speed rail with the savings.

Surely our republican friends feel a little embarrassed about having the best care the taxpayers can pay for for while voting to withhold it from folks that just wants to have what they have.


It would be interesting to be able to compare the health care plans/costs of all of the victims of the Arizona tragedy. Anybody care to hazard a guess as to which of the surviving victims won't go bankrupt from this event?

Actually, it was the Republicans who tried to put a provision into Obamacare where Congress would be subject to the same health care as us ordinary peons. Do you want to guess who killed that provision?

Yeah but that was before they won control of the house.

Freshman Rep. Andy Harris won his seat by vowing to repeal the new health care law, but he's a little less cavalier about his own insurance plan. Harris may hate Obamacare, but Harris really hates that his own taxpayer-subsidized policy won't kick in for a whole month after he's sworn in to serve his first term as a Republican congressman.

The incoming Maryland representative surprised his fellow noobs at an orientation session Monday, Politico's Glenn Thrush reports, with his indignant response to learning that his health policy won't take effect till February 1, even though he'll take office January 3. Why should he go 28 days without health care? he asked. “Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap,” a witness told Thrush, noting that Harris’s request was rather similar to "the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions ... -Care-5819" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;