Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Cutting costs would be a welcome and needed byproduct of cutting out the fraud, waste, and abuse in the R&D process.

On that we agree. But anything you might say is not the point. I deal with the realities. The topic is waste and excessive spending. No problem. I gave two simple examples of why even what you have posted cannot happen.

If we cannot even eliminate $1 billion per year wasted on paper dollar bills, then we have too many extremists in Congress. And too few people to address the real problems.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

But anything you might say is not the point.

So.... You discount prima facie anything lookout might ever say? You might want to clarify your meaning.

Also you seem to have changed your argument. Earlier it seemed that you were arguing against R&D cuts. Now you seem to be saying that such cuts would not be possible. Are you changing course, or is that a pile-on?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

So.... You discount prima facie anything lookout might ever say? You might want to clarify your meaning.

I am trying to identify the real problem. What DanaC only calls a tangent. To step back and see why these details are not solvable, often ignored, and lost in the bickering.

We have a $trillion problem. Our Congress goes to war over a misguided, insignificant, and trivial $38 billion. And cannot even discuss eliminating the paper dollar bill. That (and not those details) are the bigger problem. And that includes a military that is twice the size of what it should be due to hype and fear.

I had a feeling that sentence would not be understood.

[DanaC]

The trouble is, as far as I can see, that as soon as you start trying to zero in on waste and unnecessary expenditure, vested interests in some service areas are so powerful that the spotlight just kind of glides over them before coming to rest firmly over the service areas without powerful vested interests to protect them.

Consequently, even though it often starts out as a genuine attempt to streamline and make government fairer and more cost effective accross the board, it ends up being about limiting the help available to the weakest in society, whilst cushioning the blow for more powerful sections of society.

[DanaC]

For goodness sake, tw. You really are arguing at a tangent from Lookout there. He very clearly stated that he would want to drastically cut down military spending. Just that he wuold do so by gutting the wasteful and fraudulent elements of RnD, and stop having soldiers posted in bases all over the globe. he specifically said he would want the US military to stop being a global police force and concentrate on having the best and most effective army possible for the defence of the nation.


[eta[ and please, please stop with the nasty personal insults.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

For goodness sake, tw. You really are arguing at a tangent from

The tangent is the real problem and the only viable solution.

Yes, we do have too many troops overseas. Our extremists want to station as many troops in Iraq as we already have in Korea. That makes no sense. But the solution is not found in cutting costs. The solution is found in addressing the only reasons for those costs.

And again, that cannot happen when we cannot even eliminate the paper dollar bill.

[DanaC]

But that's precisely the point. By bringing those soldiers home and closing the bases you cut down costs.



[eta] hang on what? Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by DanaC

...

[eta] hang on what? Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?

Start with the penny.

It cost 1.79 cents to produce one penny. Eliminate the penny, save $billions.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?

No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done. Why is that so difficult? Why do extremists want more than 20,000 American soldiers stationed permanently in Iraq? They cannot even eliminate the dollar bill. That says why other more difficult solutions cannot happen.

And yes, also eliminate the penny. That is also obvious. It is it not obvious to anyone, then that person could not see the real problem. If the penny cannot be eliminated, then how will any 'power that be' have enough foresight to bring any soldiers home? Cannot happen. A problem directly traceable to a Congress with too many extremists and not enough moderates.

IOW, if Congress had moderates, then obscene spending on a penny and paper dollar bill would be eliminated immediately. Examples of why the problems are not being addressed. And why some American want 20,000 American troops permenantly stations in Iraq.

I really do not see why the bigger picture is so difficult?

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done.

That's got to be the dumbest straw-man argument I've seen, tw. Do you also say, "They put a man on the moon. Why can't they ..."?

Same thing.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Same thing.

I can appreciate your logic. But the problem remains spending money we do not have. Not about solving impossible social problems (where your quoted argument was often found). The 'we can put a man on the moon... " argument justified spending on other things that were not solvable by government. Our government spending problems are solvable only when we address obvious and simple government inaction first. Like the silly paper dollar bill and the penny.

Meanwhile, if people who put 'a man on the moon' were the 'powers that be', then even the paper dollar bill, the penny, and other spending problems would be solved. The problem is a Congress so full of extremists. So extremist as to not even put a man back on the moon - the foolish Constellation and Aries program.

How's that for irony.

[lookout123]

OK, now if we take your straw man currency issue off the table for a moment (mind you I don't disagree with that issue, it just isn't directly associated with the issue we were discussing) can you not see you got all hot and bothered jumping to regurgitate your same ol' same ol' as a response to something... you agreed with?

[DanaC]

Yeah. But...that penny gets used many times.

[Undertoad]

Paper money's status will be moot soon enough, as the majority converts to card and electronic payments for everything in the next ten years.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Paper money's status will be moot soon enough, as the majority converts to card and electronic payments for everything in the next ten years.

But in the meantime, we should put Reagan's image on the penny instead of the dime (as Republicans proposed several years ago, replace that socialist FDR) and I'll give all my jars of pennies to a socialist cause.