Only once non-moderates stop calling themselves moderates.

 

-----signature-----

Motherf*ka even I'm not that aggressive a deficit / debt reduction hawk.

Hats off to you, man, but even I think that's a bit too fast on the throttle.

 

-----signature-----

Sobaki you are running dangerously close to sounding logical and moderate. You have been warned.

Lemme get your take on the state worker unions, police, teachers, etc that have contracts allowing yearly wage increases.
I agree with the across the board cuts.
Would you support following thru with this when it effects the unions and stirs them to arglebargle?
This is what causes most of the politicos to shy away from the cuts, danger of election year heat from the unions and such.

 

-----signature-----

Too much money in politics, as long as it costs shameful amounts of money to be elected nothing will change.

 

-----signature-----

There are no sane people in politics

 

-----signature-----

We're so far away from it right now it is not foreseeable.

 

-----signature-----

To sobaki's plan, and with your question in mind, I wonder how much cutting we can find from wasteful government contractors, and similar abuses vs. cutting civil servants...

now obviously the devil is in the details there and one man's waste is another man's necessity, but, the bottom line is that we know there is huge waste in our spending that IS NOT necessarily tied to salaries or benefits for civil servants...

 

-----signature-----

Sobaki has always been logical and moderate. Just the haters calling him anything different.

 

-----signature-----

Also you need to wake the hell up regarding military funding, if you cut what you spend by half it would still be 3 times as much as the next biggest spender (china) and still be as much as the next 5 biggest spenders combined (China/UK/Russia/France/Japan).

 

-----signature-----

It's an interesting dilemma.


I work with Federal Government employees on a daily basis. I can assure you that I see very little motivation for them to do a good job when they don't have to worry about losing their job. That's not to say there aren't any worthwhile fed/state/local employees but I do believe it is too difficult for them to enact change on an individual level. The result is a climate of thrid rate support with ever increasing costs. If a company could never survive with this sort of business model, why would/should we expect the Government to be able to survive? I know the Government isn't a company, but there are some industry/corporate policies and procedures that can surely be used to provide for better service with lower costs.


Another example is bad tenured teachers that give the rest of the teachers a bad name. But because a teacher would like to achieve tenure, working against one's own interest doesn't inspire much motivation either. However, if you're doing a good job, why should you be worried about losgin your job? Sometimes, cost cutting includes cutting staff. No one, not even teachers, should be untouchable when we have to strive to cut some costs. Hopefully, the teachers that are cut are second and third rate. Same goes for police.


All contracts (union/government) should have appropriate verbiage that allows price adjustments to take place. The last few years are perfect examples why holding to certain numbers during "good" times doesn't work during "bad" times. EVERYONE should understand that sacrifices need to be made. Everyone. Just so I'm a little more clear on adjusting price, if the price is adjusted down, as is expected during bad times, there should also be a corresponding decrease in requirements.

 

-----signature-----