my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 3 of 27
Quote:So you have no thoughts about what is going wrong that you'd like to change or eliminate; or about what is going right that you'd like to expand or at least preserve?
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Meh - party platforms are easy to write and even easier to ignore. They're probably written by some first year interns.
Preserve??? Why? Like for points later? That's just guessing and has little connection to what actually happens. If you guess right but for the wrong reasons, do you still get points? Sounds boring as hell - pass.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Balance the Budget.
2. Pay down the Debt.
For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior.
Obama obliterated that model.
So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher.
The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I agree with you. But rather than an across-the-board freeze I'd look for areas that can be trimmed of fat.
Quote:I hope you don't mind the reformatting - I find it easier to read as linear from past to present, rather than nested.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That is the exact logic behind the problem.
There are no Partisans who do not have a pet project, pet Department or Agency, favored sector of Government or constituents.
As some Libertarian candidates have simply said, if you could reduce the spending in all the portions of the budget you dislike, would you be willing to allow the reduction in spending of your favorite program?
Anyway - isn't that what platforms are about? To outline what you think is going right or going wrong, to state your reasons why you think they're right or wrong, and to propose your actions to address what's right or wrong?
When we evaluate candidates, we have a set of measures we use. When we go to vote, we go with our ideas and our preferences. I'm hoping that by trying to come up with a platform people will express their ideal scenarios.
After all, who could represent your thoughts better than you?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Meh - party platforms are easy to write and even easier to ignore. They're probably written by some first year interns.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So you have no thoughts about what is going wrong that you'd like to change or eliminate; or about what is going right that you'd like to expand or at least preserve?
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Preserve??? Why? Like for points later? That's just guessing and has little connection to what actually happens. If you guess right but for the wrong reasons, do you still get points? Sounds boring as hell - pass.
That's OK if you find this boring but ...
*Preserve*
Uh ... did you focus on one word out of context and ignore the idea that this is about policies that eliminate/ reduce or preserve/ expand, not 'preserving' gotcha-point-scoring?
When we evaluate candidates, we have a set of measures we use. When we go to vote, we go with our ideas and our preferences. I'm hoping that by trying to come up with a platform people will express their ideal scenarios.
After all, who could represent your thoughts better than you?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Balance the Budget.
2. Pay down the Debt.
For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior.
Obama obliterated that model.
So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher.
The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I agree with you. But rather than an across-the-board freeze I'd look for areas that can be trimmed of fat.
Quote:I hope you don't mind the reformatting - I find it easier to read as linear from past to present, rather than nested.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That is the exact logic behind the problem.
There are no Partisans who do not have a pet project, pet Department or Agency, favored sector of Government or constituents.
As some Libertarian candidates have simply said, if you could reduce the spending in all the portions of the budget you dislike, would you be willing to allow the reduction in spending of your favorite program?
Anyway - isn't that what platforms are about? To outline what you think is going right or going wrong, to state your reasons why you think they're right or wrong, and to propose your actions to address what's right or wrong?
When we evaluate candidates, we have a set of measures we use. When we go to vote, we go with our ideas and our preferences. I'm hoping that by trying to come up with a platform people will express their ideal scenarios.
After all, who could represent your thoughts better than you?!
As for formatting: I can understand that, thanks for explaining your why. Some people seem to reformat but skip the attribution, or have disconnected exchange without dates or how far back in history the quote was from, or out of context. I usually ignore those posts and treat it as invisible.
In 1986 the Gramm-Rudman Act was in effect. It was an attempt to Balance the Budget, or reign in Spending. The Federal Budget has never been balanced since then. Everybody says they are going to change the Budget, most to favor their constituents, but nobody agrees enough to place Balance above Spending. Everybody outside Libertarians want to Spend more that the Revenues.
My 2 methods are both ways to address the problems, and both are certain to work if adhered to. All of the children in Congress insist upon not Balancing the Budget, so these methods are a Cudgel to use in lieu of them reasonably performing their duty.
If you want to spend more money on whatever pet project you have, I will object every step of the way until after a Fiscal Year is elapsed with a Budget Balanced.
If you want any increase in funding, of any amount, any percent or fraction or increment, I will oppose you at every step. Even if you happen upon my favorite Department, I will only argue for increases to match others, but still with the overriding preference that no increase is greatly advantageous.
The only exception is Payment of Interest on the Debt, which increases without control by Congress.
If my #1 and #2 are not the top 2 priorities, then all other lip service amounts to failure of these 2. I do not agree to allow ANY other Platform Plank to out-rank my Top 2.
The methods can be altered, but these top 2 must remain the top priority above all else.
I don't know why this is not a basic foundation of Budgeting and Appropriation.
Any other Top 2 priorities which are not mine are complete failures, and are unacceptable in my book.
And yes, there are some politicians who have mouthed the same sentiments - it is not my idea alone. Despite that, these 2 priorities have been subverted at every step since Nixon. And I do not agree to acquiesce to furthering this nonsense.
If you want to re-priorit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:points of clarification requested
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
-- In 1986 the Gramm-Rudman Act was in effect.
-- If you want to re-prioritize one Budget Section over or under another, all of that can be done within the template of the 2006 Budget.
-- Didn't Clinton have budget surpluses three or four years?
-- Why 2006?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Balance the Budget.
2. Pay down the Debt.
For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior.
Obama obliterated that model.
So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher.
The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business.
Also, why 2006? What's special about that year?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The CBO is the highly Partisan Liberal Congressional Budget Office, which, like many highly Partisan Liberal entities, hides behind the moniker "non-partisan" to propagate that myth.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:I did look into that a bit. The surpluses were as calculated by the CBO according to some websites. The deficits were as calculated by the US Treasury according to others. But nobody provided active links that I looked at, and going to the respective websites there was either literally no information for the years I looked at, or no report. I'm not trying to be either Mulder or Scully, just looking for information.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The Debt increased every year since the early 70s. Some people choose to believe that means there was a Surplus. If you believe that, that is your business.
Treasury is a Department of the Executive Branch. It includes Law Enforcement, similar to what the FBI used to be.
Look at the actual Debt totals. They are always more than the year before, except for finagled retroactive figures.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At some point I hope to go here and just look at year-by-year January totals. I'm posting this here for reference: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
And I have to remember to see of bond sales are included as debt, since afaik dubya kept war-spending out of the budget with 'emergency spending' bills paid for by bonds.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BONDS? Is THAT how Dubya kept war spending out of the budget? Clearly, we need a better accounting process, or a better appropriations process. In any case people who have looked into the budget claim to have found a cumulative total of $22 TRILLION dollars in unaccounted transfers of money, mostly in the Pentagon (which has never sucessfully pssed an audit) and HUD (of all departments). Some say that this money was acutally siphoned off into the Exchange Stabilization Fund which is used by our governmen tobuy its own Treasuries so that there aren't any "failed" bond auctions.
So, like I said, maybe we should start with a better accounting and approproations system.
Assuming that's in place ...
JSF, it seems an article of faith with you that we must reduced the deficit and pay down the debt, and that this be done, not by increasing taxes but by reducing expenditures.
So, OOC, is there ANY level of debt that you find acceptable, or ANY justification that you find allowable?
Are there ANY programs that justify an increase in taxes, or must government spending always be reduced?
Why, or why not? I intend to pursue this train of thought thru a series of "why" questions until I feel that I understand your position, I hope you stick with this line of questioning, thanks.
PS: As an aside, I believe that as various banks, bond ratings agencies, and nations come to the realization that the USA will not pay off its debt, eventually there will be a crisis of confidence in the USD. So I'm prepared to say that the current debt and its growth are unsustainable. The thing that may keep the dollar afloat is that other currencies w/in the western orbit, specifically the EUR and the JPY, may depreciate faster leaving the USD a currency of RELATIVE safety.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME