Shopsmith Forums

fredsheldon wrote:Bob, I fully expect the price of gas to drop to $2.50 in 2013 and the Stock Market to hit 14,000 as well. I still have a job and my health at 68. My kids and grandkids are all healthy and happy. My roads don't have potholes and the bridges are still standing. I still have my guns. I don't understand why some people are always so negative when there is so much to be positive about. I always look at the glass as being half full not half empty. I hope your outlook for 2013 is better than it was for 2012. Happy New Year and thanks for keeping us safe.

Can I reply to my own post?? A few more days like today and both my predictions will be true much sooner than I had hoped. The Stock market was up 3% today and gas was $2.90 here as well. You did get into the stock market last week based on my predictions didn't you

Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.

While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.

Yet even these minuscule cuts in the “projected rate of spending” were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute “deal” was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.

Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called “bipartisanship” in Washington.

While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.

While many on both sides express satisfaction that this deal only increases taxes on the “rich,” most Americans will see more of their paycheck going to Washington because of the deal. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 77 percent of Americans would see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut.

The arguments against the automatic “cuts” in military spending were particularly dishonest. Hawks on both sides warned of doom and gloom if, as the plan called for, the defense budget would have returned to 2007 levels of spending! Does anybody really believe that our defense spending was woefully inadequate just five years ago? And since 2007 we have been told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?

Ironically, some of the members who are most vocal against tax increases and in favor of cuts to domestic spending are the biggest opponents of cutting a penny from the Pentagon budget. Over and over we were told of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost should military spending be returned to 2007 levels. Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic “stimulus” created by militarism.

As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote recently, “It’s easy to focus exclusively on the companies and individuals hurt by the cuts and forget that the taxed wealth that funded them is being employed elsewhere.”

While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending. Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people. Of course, the Federal Reserve’s policies do impose an “inflation” tax on the American people; however, since this tax is hidden Congress does not fear the same public backlash it would experience if it directly raised income taxes.

I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people’s attitudes toward government. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.

- Ron Paul, 2 January 2013

heathicus wrote:I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people’s attitudes toward government.

Oh ya mean like the PORK BARREL additions that it took to get the bill passed.

skou wrote:You might want to re-consider JFK, there, but CAPITALIZE LBJ! I don't think JFK was a progressive, but his Veep sure was! (Notice that progressive was not capitalized, that was on purpose.) progressivism is the ROOT of all American evil!

I wouldn't put BHO on that list, either. He is more straight communist/socialist, and following the Cloward/Piven ticket. He is not acting stupidly, (unlike the police) he is following DIRECT orders from (Soros) above! When this Country falls, let it be known, it wasn't an accident, or bad policy. It was WELL thought out!

If you want an eye opener, look up George Soros, Cloward and Piven. Also, look up where we're heading! Rapidly!! steve

Steve, I anguished over adding JFK. No matter what else he was I don't believe he was a progressive, or anti-American like the others.However, I had mentioned, in the discussion of Party, who had brought us our major wars (and I thought it was more or less apparent I was concerned with those of the new era), and JFK is commonly linked to Viet Nam. Also, as you point out, when we fall it will have been all well thought out. Indeed, from the Progressive Era onward there has been a design to destroy America. Here's another Truth not known by many and hidden by the MSM, speaking of a "plan": what founder of a prominent political organization in the U.S. since roughly the time of the Russian Revolution states this as his organization's purpose: "Communism is the Goal."?


I tend to share your opinions about B.O. and C&P, Soros et al.
Although I admit I'd forgotten about C&P. How many names to remember! Obama/Soetoro was born of communism and islam, raised or mentored by communism and perversion, got his push-start into U.S. politics by communism, American Terrorism, and God only knows what other evil.
Look at his "staff". Holy carp! Tax cheats, perverts, communists, socialists, progressives, Marxists, and on and on.

And now, for entertainment, the word (at this point fairly called rumor or propaganda as much as anything) that B. Hussein Obama/Soetoro- he of the many Social Security numbers and fraudulent Selective Service I.D., has never (repeat never) been legally elected to any government office.

We know (opinion) he had not produced certified legal I.D. for his candidacy for president, and it is absolutely a proven truth ("on the record") that the certification by the Democratic Party was NOT complete in all 50 states as it must be to be valid.
But it goes back farther. He was not elected to his first office in Illinois (he was "appointed"), and thus was not obligated to produce certified I.D.
Every election since then his "I.D." was "grandfathered" in, so to speak, based on "he's been elected before" yada yada. We heard that very rationale raised during the last two elections as well. (That's how Pelosi got away with her incomplete state certifications.)

It's fascinating. I just hope I'll be able to get tickets to the execution after the trial and conviction.
Speaking of Soros, I wonder how far back his connection goes. Was he involved, for instance, in 1992, the year that that American scientist then in Moscow was told by a "former" soviet communist operative that America would be getting a black president, and not just that but one whose name is Barack?

Yep, fascinating.

* * * Btw, that real Quote "Communism is the goal."-- Baldwin, A C L U founder, circa 1917, on his org's mission statement. Truth

Gee! Look at all the 'fun' I missed by ignoring this thread up until now!:D








Not sorry I did!;)





What we need are elected officials 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.

major_bob wrote:So those of us in uniform are deserving of a cost-of-living adjustment to avoid being paid less and less every year but the civilian sitting at the desk next to me doesn't ? These are the people that develop our training, write our manuals and train our soldiers. They deliver medical care, dental care, legal assistance and pay. They deploy with the Army (I have two civilian employees on a temporary deployment in Afghanistan now) and are just as dedicated to the mission as the service members they support.

I understand that sacrifices are to be made to deal with the US debt and budget problem. I just don't understand why that sacrifice is only expected to be made by those individuals who actually show up to work everyday and contribute to the defense of this country as opposed to those that sit at home and collect checks, food stamps, subsidized rent and free cell phones.

Yes, those in uniform deserve COLA and whatever else they can get. Civilian employees do NOT, simply based on what their work address is. After all, they are not the only non-military who contribute to the defense of this county.
You could spend months evaluating and then listing and then justifying people who are dedicated daily workers that in some form or another support the military or their country, that don't have a direct 1040 link to my wallet.
I would undoubtedly feel differently if our active duty people got pay equal to the auxiliary (civil service, whatever called).
[I remember a "tech rep" at our BMEWS station, who did exactly what I did- IF it was nine to five- but as a "civilian" made 5 times what I got paid, plus a wide menu of 'extras'. But that's not the real point.]

So right now the issue is an ancient one: apples or oranges? Do those in uniform receive equal pay and benefits to those not in uniform?
No.
Will they ever?
No.
If they don't get a raise, should the guy at the next desk doing the same work get one?
No.

P e r c e p t i o n.
The economy is broken and a president vows to destroy it.
The soldier doesn't get a raise.
The private taxpayer doesn't get a raise, and in fact is destitute (see 'president').
The taxpayer/worker has to start buying supermarket-brand baked beans, and the civil servants want a raise-- from him?

Crazy!

Sorry m Bob, but your last paragraph throws me, if it was meant to have anything whatever to do with the rest of the discussion about military personnel and civil servants re pay & COLA.

Not being a Liberal/progressive I won't tell you what you meant by what you wrote, and rather I'll just admit that I missed your point.

But it got me thinking. Looking at it from another angle, I'd say sure, sacrifices must be made re the economy. I don't disagree. I can't quite decide how to justify those under COLA standards NOT being expected to make the same sacrifices.
That sounds like public "workers" unions.

And I'll sign off with a little humor at the expense of socialist workers: seen at a OWS "demonstration" a hand-held sign terrifically demonstrative of the "collective" IQ of the group-- "Tax the rich until they're poor".

Sure glad I wan't drinking or eating anything when I saw that.

LOL! I wonder: then whose wallets would the group steal from?

dusty wrote:I don't know that that is what was being said here regarding military vs federal employee but what I think should happen is that all federal government employees (military included) should be placed on the same pay scale, same medical benefits, same subsistence allowance, same quarters allowance, same travel pay, same retirement plan, same vacation schedule, same hostile duty pay, same dress code, same code of conduct, etc, etc.

There is much said about equal pay for equal work. I think that would be great. It might be difficult determining which federal job description is equivalent to that of a combat member who jumps out of a plane into hostile territory to get to work but nobody said it would be easy.

Dusty, thank you. You expressed elegantly what I wanted to but couldn't.

JPG40504 wrote:...

What we need are elected officials 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.

My fav current bumper sticker is now almost three years old:
"America needs an American President"

When I first started this thread it was to see if anyone had any good ideas about how to punish those in power who abuse the average citizen. I thought that with all the problem solving skills of this forum, something could be devised that would help create a path towards getting our elected representatives to feel the consequences of thoughtless actions.

I am so sorry that this became so contentious.

If I had wanted to cause this much controversy I would have started a thread about eliminating the BCS and having a championship by play off.

I DO believe that reasonable people can agree to disagree and present their own thoughtful and thought provoking ideas without causing emotionally injury.

I've found that we can find wisdom in the words of toddlers as well as those who are long in the tooth. Age is simply a number.

It is rather late at night (or early in the morning depending upon your viewpoint) and I have a multitude of thoughts about what has transpired in this thread. Since I can be more than long winded, I guess I'll leave it with this.

I am sorry for any harm my actions caused by starting this thread and at the same time and with the same breath I am VERY proud to live in a country where this form of debate is still allowed.

May the New Year bring all of you an abundance of that which you hold most dear.

Ben

Ben,
No apology needed IMHO.

Reading this thread I find myself looking for my tin foil hat and online law degree (doesn't every one on the internet have one of these?)

Unfortunately one the problems of this country has been manifested here in our own forum.

For any person (regardless of political affiliation) that believes that their political party has all the answers:

You're dreaming!! Just as no one person has all the answers, no single political point of view has all the answers. When narrow minded vitriolic speech is used you become part of the problem.

There has always been a divide in this country when it comes to how we will govern ourselves. Heck the first draft of the Constitution took 11 years and several revisions to even come up for ratification, and then it took an additional 10 amendments to pass. 13 years from Declaration of Independence (an incredibly radical and progressive document) to Constitution which IMHO is a very moderate and sane approach to governing.

Winston Churchill said In a speech in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

That being said, our government is NOT a pure democracy rather it is a federal republic based on democratic principles.

When our elected representatives decide to serve something other than their constituency and the nation's best interest, the problems begin. When we the people fail to act on this misbehavior we begin the entrenchment of these problems. Those voting for and supporting elected representatives based solely on political ideology support this entrenchment.

On to the Original Post.

Write to your elected officials and share your concerns, register to vote and VOTE. (If you're not a registered voter, you are automatically not part of the elected representatives constituency and your voice will not be heard). I make it a point to attempt to fire elected representatives that I either do not agree with or do not trust. Party affiliation means nothing to me (Independent voter here) as the 2 main parties have essentially blended into one giant club of self serving vipers that use political affiliation as a tool to garner financial backing and political favor rather than solve problems. These are about the only options we have. Communicate and vote.

This has certainly been an interesting read.