renaissance Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm not sure why people are saying that this guy has cajones for putting forth this plan. If he had a legit shot to get elected as president, then I would say he has balls for proposing all these cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 What if they had a record of both fighting EPA bureaucratic idiocy and cleaning the environment? The EPA bureaucratic idiocy has been responsible for the progress the US has made in reducing pollution and people should be thankful we have an EPA. Don't think for one second that the free market would have cleaned up the environment. If it had, we wouldn't have needed the EPA to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 You've just described EVERY SINGLE AGENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I can't speak for every government agency...as I said, I can only speak for the EPA...and from my experiences with them (and granted I actually benefit from alot of their knee-jerk, and mostly pointless regs), they are extremely inefficient, and need to be seriously audited and forced to become more efficient. In order to make change, you need to force a change. So, cut their budget and force them to make the change. Sometimes, it is actually just that simple. Thats the way ALOT of successful companies work. They see departments are inefficient, and when they try and discuss with the Supervisor where they can make cuts, the supervisor will ALWAYS say "There's no way, no place I can make cuts" which of course is BS. They just don't want to have to put the time in to use their brain and find a more effcicient way. So how does the Head Boss get the cuts? Force it, and you know what happens? They find a way and become more efficient....kind of like evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I can't speak for every government agency...as I said, I can only speak for the EPA...and from my experiences with them (and granted I actually benefit from alot of their knee-jerk, and mostly pointless regs), they are extremely inefficient, and need to be seriously audited and forced to become more efficient. In order to make change, you need to force a change. So, cut their budget and force them to make the change. Sometimes, it is actually just that simple. Thats the way ALOT of successful companies work. They see departments are inefficient, and when they try and discuss with the Supervisor where they can make cuts, the supervisor will ALWAYS say "There's no way, no place I can make cuts" which of course is BS. They just don't want to have to put the time in to use their brain and find a more effcicient way. So how does the Head Boss get the cuts? Force it, and you know what happens? They find a way and become more efficient....kind of like evolution. Well, even if that's true, that's not what is being discussed. RP proposed to eliminate the EPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 they are also responsible for shipping jobs overseas there is a middle ground,and adding a requirement they have to consider economics is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Lol.Yeah, you just go on with your bad self Mr. Paul and cut public health agencies like the EPA and FDA. Hell, let's whack the CDC while we're at it. And screw those no good NIH ****s too. Please do not panic; there is no need for fear. The free market will self correct for any plagues/diseases/health crises. This message was brought to you by The Umbrella Corporation: "Our Business Is Life Itself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well, even if that's true, that's not what is being discussed. RP proposed to eliminate the EPA. Well in my original I suggested budget cut not eliminate since I do agree they are needed...but to even suggest that it be removed, perhaps his goal was to get them to look at themselves and realize there is middle ground from where they are to being completely gone. Sometimes things are said for shock value and to get people to start communicating, thinking, compromising and finding bettter ways to avoid the extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 What has he proposed that you haven't liked? I've never been hugely in his court on the environment, nor a fan of his take on earmarks (though I understand what each opinion is rooted in) and he isnt proposing "slicing up" those agency, merely to reduce their budgets, which makes sense. "The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html#ixzz1b3rxQGcT ---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 01:35 PM ---------- I just can't take seriously any plan that doesn't raise revenue to pay down the credit card bill. It's one thing to cut future expenses but we aren't getting out of this without raising some cash to pay down our debt.Add: I wish "leaders" would also take into account long term harm and cost when considering what programs to cut. yet you would seemingly support unending increasing the balance of the credit card bill. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 they are also responsible for shipping jobs overseas No they're not, that responsibility lies with the corporations....no one MAKES them ship jobs overseas, they choose to do so. Your logic is that of a spouse who cheats after her husband does saying, "He made me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well, even if that's true, that's not what is being discussed. RP proposed to eliminate the EPA. didnt you read the article? The EPA would see a 30 percent cut. That leaves 70% remaining by my calculator. Not an elimination by any stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 didnt you read the article?The EPA would see a 30 percent cut. That leaves 70% remaining by my calculator. Not an elimination by any stretch. And what have Ron Paul and his son Randy said about what they would like to see happen with the EPA? Oh that's right...they want it eliminated because they do not believe that the EPA is constitutionally warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 No they're not, that responsibility lies with the corporations....no one MAKES them ship jobs overseas, they choose to do so. Your logic is that of a spouse who cheats after her husband does saying, "He made me." a spouse should endure abuse? In what world are corps WED to the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 didnt you read the article?The EPA would see a 30 percent cut. That leaves 70% remaining by my calculator. Not an elimination by any stretch. To be honest, I didn't read the article. I erroneously assumed RP's proposal would be to eliminate the EPA. His own website proposes to eliminate the EPA. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 and he isnt proposing "slicing up" those agency, merely to reduce their budgets, which makes sense. "The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent Seems like some pretty big slices to me. If Ron Paul decided to cut 30-40 percent of your income, how would you characterize it? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Seems like some pretty big slices to me.If Ron Paul decided to cut 30-40 percent of your income, how would you characterize it? lol Unless the slice is 100% then its reduction vs elimination as some here claimed. ---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 01:56 PM ---------- To be honest, I didn't read the article. I erroneously assumed RP's proposal would be to eliminate the EPA. His own website proposes to eliminate the EPA.http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/ He would love to eliminate it, but that isnt what this proposal entails. ---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 01:58 PM ---------- And what have Ron Paul and his son Randy said about what they would like to see happen with the EPA?Oh that's right...they want it eliminated because they do not believe that the EPA is constitutionally warranted. again, their feelings on the matter are not necessarily the ends that this proposal outlines, He specifically said in this proposal to cut 30% rather than full elimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Unless the slice is 100% then its reduction vs elimination as some here claimed.---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 01:56 PM ---------- He would love to eliminate it, but that isnt what this proposal entails. I never said "elimination". Although I am surprised he didn't want to privatize them like he suggested with the TSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 a spouse should endure abuse? LOL hardly, but neither should they use that as an excuse for their own behavior, the choices they make are their own. In what world are corps WED to the US? And there you have it, finally, an admission from the Right that businesses owe nothing to the US, and are not here to do what is best for the country but instead only for themselves, and to pretend that they'll do any different is foolish. As such they should not be trusted. ---------- Post added October-17th-2011 at 02:10 PM ---------- again, their feelings on the matter are not necessarily the ends that this proposal outlines, He specifically said in this proposal to cut 30% rather than full elimination. THIS time.....and how much the next time? He'll try to kill it one cut at a time, and you'll pretend that's not what he's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 ASF....can I use that line with the tax collectors? Business is business,govt is govt....you go merging the two and ya got something other than the Founders envisioned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Business is business,govt is govt....you go merging the two and ya got something other than the Founders envisioned Ending slavery, was something other than the founders envisioned, as was women's sufferage. At least though with your admission we can finally get past the myth perpetrated by the Right that businesses will help America, businesses will do no such thing unless it is in their own self interest, that's why they didn't start hiring with the tax cuts, they didn't care, and they knew it wasn't their job to lower the unemployment rate, instead it would be fully within their job description to raise the unemployment rate so long as it raised their profit margin. Yet the Right would have us believe that businesses are itching to hire if only they got to pay less in taxes...believe that and you probably believe in unicorns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I don't know, but maybe cutting their budget would force them to look at themselves and force them to become efficient....I know, I'm dreaming.... That could do some good... but then again, that will not necessarily force the management, overpaid consultants, underperforming programs, etc out the door. If the organization is bad, it will not make good cuts. I am thinking that maybe it is possible to have some kind of an inter-agency competition to drive up efficiencies. Currently every agency appears to be disconnected from everybody else, having its own budget, etc. There is little motivation to cut costs because you cost less = you get a smaller budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.htmlThat is a crazy amount of cuts.... Why is cutting spending for money we don't have viewed as Crazy yet spending well over $1,000,000,000,000.00 more than we have take in this year sane? When will it be a "good time" to stop going deeper into debt? I will use an analogy I have used in the past about our nations "social spending" Pick your two favorite charities - ones you think are great and that "makes the world a better place" Now pledge to each, 100% of your annual earnings (yes 200% total). How long to you think you could last doing just that? (Remember these are your favorite, best charities that do more good with your money than you could do on your own.) Bottom line, we need real cuts in Government spending that will "hurt" some. But at some point in time you must admit that we cannot afford EVERYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That could do some good... but then again, that will not necessarily force the management, overpaid consultants, underperforming programs, etc out the door. If the organization is bad, it will not make good cuts.I am thinking that maybe it is possible to have some kind of an inter-agency competition to drive up efficiencies. Currently every agency appears to be disconnected from everybody else, having its own budget, etc. There is little motivation to cut costs because you cost less = you get a smaller budget. I LOVE your thoughts on this! Creativity is what we need more of! Kudos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That could do some good... but then again, that will not necessarily force the management, overpaid consultants, underperforming programs, etc out the door. If the organization is bad, it will not make good cuts.I am thinking that maybe it is possible to have some kind of an inter-agency competition to drive up efficiencies. Currently every agency appears to be disconnected from everybody else, having its own budget, etc. There is little motivation to cut costs because you cost less = you get a smaller budget. That is also why I suggested getting audited by a 3rd party (only way for a shot at a serious audit). The audit can also weed out the expenditures that were used just to use up any budget surplus they may have had that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Why is cutting spending for money we don't have viewed as Crazy yet spending well over $1,000,000,000,000.00 more than we have take in this year sane? When will it be a "good time" to stop going deeper into debt? Cutting is good, but not on things that are essential, and the EPA is essential. But at some point in time you must admit that we cannot afford EVERYTHING. End the wars, cut defense to a reasonable level, that would be a huge start right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 t the Right would have us believe that businesses are itching to hire if only they got to pay less in taxes...believe that and you probably believe in unicorns. Is raising their taxes gonna provide a reason to hire? Jobs are a symptom of a healthy climate for business(see Texas) If ya wanna know why business leaves or does not hire ya need to look beyond the symptoms.....it is not a 'only 'issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.