The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-28-2012, 06:19 PM   #26
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
So, stealing SS and medicare money once wasn't good enough for your warmongering greed? You want to do it twice?
Remember, cut wants the US to be able to kick military ass on the rest of the world put together.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 08:35 PM   #27
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,187

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_692223.html

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:
See link


"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."



UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 08:59 PM   #28
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
So, stealing SS and medicare money once wasn't good enough for your warmongering greed? You want to do it twice?
Social Security was always just another tax thought up by liberals. I'm not surprised people pissed about that now that they are finding out.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:03 PM   #29
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...rs_692223.html

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:
See link


"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."



UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."
I'm ok with them getting a slight raise and with how much they make. Really those numbers are a drop in the bucket. If we make this job to low of pay we will get even worst people in office.

Plus most of them have a spouse and go over the 250 threshold. Obama has to give them a raise to offset the thousands more in tax they will pay.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:11 PM   #30
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Remember, cut wants the US to be able to kick military ass on the rest of the world put together.
Don't look now but N Korea just launched a missile that could hit the US. Oh and in a few days they will detonate another nuke.

China being belligerent trying to snatch resources from other coutries in asia.

Russia building military and becoming more and more a thorn in our side. Their plan is to become more powerful then the US.

I agree we can cut. My point is we only spend like 4% of gdp, around what 700 billion a yr? I'm not sure what we could cut. Our aircraft carriers are old and making some new ones is a smart move. The old ones use an outdated powerplant. Its just one of those things we have to have. Carriers are how we project power to other regions on a moments notice.

Also we already spent too much on the f-35. We have to push ahead and finish that project. The money spent keeping the older planes in service is getting tough. I know a marine jet mechanic and according to him many of our f-16s f-15s are way passed how many hours they were designed to fly.

Really the money is in the troop levels. So.......we could cut there after Afghan draws down. Maybe reduce by what? 50 thousand troops? Not really sure how many we could cut out and still have enough if some conflict arose.

Mainly though I believe that we have to keep staying as far ahead technologically as we can. That takes money.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 10:19 PM   #31
Cito Pelon
Attack at all times . . .
 
Cito Pelon's Avatar
 
Shabby County Seat

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AFC Championshipville, NotTooShabby County
Posts: 16,008

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Slim Shabby
Default

I'd like to see more problem solving and less finger pointing.
Cito Pelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 10:52 PM   #32
Cito Pelon
Attack at all times . . .
 
Cito Pelon's Avatar
 
Shabby County Seat

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AFC Championshipville, NotTooShabby County
Posts: 16,008

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Slim Shabby
Default

Trying to save face or gain face seems to be ruling on the Beltway. They're not governing, they're in competition with each other.
Cito Pelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 08:47 AM   #33
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
defense is only what 4% of gdp? something like that? You can cut defense and not make a dent. Entitlements are where the money is.
We should go back to Reagan Term Military spending levels.... That's 300b a year in savings, and there is no super power threat right now militarily...

But yes, Medicare and Healthcare is our largest outlay with projected growth... We will need to make decisions about it very soon
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:00 AM   #34
Meck77
Google Blows
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cito Pelon View Post
They're not governing, they're in competition with each other.
Our government reminds me of the Tim Tebow lead Broncos. You have one guy running up and down the field trying to make plays even though he's a very poor passer and poor QB/leader in general. Oh but he had heart! Rather than steady leadership throughout the game Tebow would lead us to the fiscal cliff. Come to find out later not many on the team respected Tebow which was an obvious problem.

Effective leaders bring people together and make everyone better. See Peyton Manning. Barrack Obama is no Manning.
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:15 AM   #35
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,732

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Social Security was always just another tax thought up by liberals. I'm not surprised people pissed about that now that they are finding out.
No, it was a specifically funded social safety net program that was increased and then turned into a quasi-general tax by Reagan.

But of course, you're just trying to avoid the question. Why should we steal that money twice?

The SS program is currently >$2.6 trillion in the black (meaning SS tax revenues have exceeded outlays by $2.6 trillion). Reagan decided we should be allowed to "borrow" that money (>$2.6T of the current debt figures are in treasury bills owed to the SS program), in part for his unwarrented build up in the 80s (600 ship navy, etc.). Now you want to say: too bad, we borrowed it but we aren't going to pay it back.

It hasn't never contributed a dime to the current national debt. Why should it used to fix the problem (and in large part continue funneling huge amounts of wasted money into the military), again?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:39 AM   #36
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,732

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Don't look now but N Korea just launched a missile that could hit the US. Oh and in a few days they will detonate another nuke.

China being belligerent trying to snatch resources from other coutries in asia.

Russia building military and becoming more and more a thorn in our side. Their plan is to become more powerful then the US.

I agree we can cut. My point is we only spend like 4% of gdp, around what 700 billion a yr?
You always talk about China hiding defense spending, then continue the myth that we only spend $700bn on defense.

Don't forget the VA, NASA (about half their budget is military R&D), Department of Energy (nukes), Homeland Security (most of what it does is defense oriented: coast guard, border patrol, USSS, etc.), The Treasury dept (pays military pensions).

All told we spend over a trillion a year on defense every year, probably more.

Quote:
I'm not sure what we could cut. Our aircraft carriers are old and making some new ones is a smart move. The old ones use an outdated powerplant. Its just one of those things we have to have. Carriers are how we project power to other regions on a moments notice.

Also we already spent too much on the f-35. We have to push ahead and finish that project. The money spent keeping the older planes in service is getting tough. I know a marine jet mechanic and according to him many of our f-16s f-15s are way passed how many hours they were designed to fly.

Really the money is in the troop levels. So.......we could cut there after Afghan draws down. Maybe reduce by what? 50 thousand troops? Not really sure how many we could cut out and still have enough if some conflict arose.
The vast bulk of the savings we could have comes from waste. You know, that waste all the conservatives rail about, except when it comes to military spending?

Everything from treating generals and admirals like royalty to having unneeded (that the PENTAGON didn't even WANT) weapons systems to just general waste that occurs in every large organization. You seem to want to remain entirely clueless about how much pork goes into military spending as a consequence of our economy being propped up by it.

Some defense projects the pentagon didn't even want:

- The Global Hawk Block 30 drone program;
- The C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft;
- Upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank;
- Air National Guard funding;
- A proposed East Coast missile defense system.
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
- Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System (a.ka. the SLAMRAAM)

That's something around $100 billion in various programs that the military didn't even want.

Then just general waste:

"Like any government agency, the Pentagon has a serious problem with waste. An audit last year by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that management failures at the Department of Defense led to $70 billion of waste over just a two-year period. Another GAO report from 2010 found that the Defense Logistics Agency, which acquires military equipment, was ordering 50 percent more equipment than it needed, and $7 billion worth of supplies were sitting in a warehouse."

Oh, and lets not forget the trillions (more than one) spent in the last decade on completely unnecessary wars. Even if we pulled every single troop and piece of equipment out of useless wars today we'd still be spending $100bn or more on those wars a year for decades (VA, pensions, etc.)

You could probably lop $200 billion (or perhaps more) off the defense budget without any effect whatsoever on defense capability. Ask the admirals and generals what they really _need_, and just do that. Hell, we could probably afford a couple more carrier groups you are so proud of and still have cuts. Of course, that would mean politicians doing whats right for the country and not whats good for themselves, so it won't happen if we leave it in their hands.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...se-budget.html

http://www.opencongress.org/articles...lex-Wins-Again

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...idnt-want.html
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 10:09 AM   #37
Meck77
Google Blows
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post

- The Global Hawk Block 30 drone program;
- The C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft;
- Upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank;
- Air National Guard funding;
- A proposed East Coast missile defense system.
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
- Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System (a.ka. the SLAMRAAM)

That's something around $100 billion in various programs that the military didn't even want.
You can thank the mid east holy war for that. Meanwhile our border is basically unprotected. It's idiotic.

Watch this video. You will be outraged knowing this is happening to our country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcwIy_fQuU

Last edited by Meck77; 12-29-2012 at 10:17 AM..
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 10:16 AM   #38
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,732

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meck77 View Post
You can thank the mid east holy war for that. Meanwhile our border is basically unprotected. It's idiotic.
I don't disagree that mideast wars are a problem with spending, but the real cause for this is politicians wanting to give handouts to their districts (handouts in the form of unnecessary spending). At the root of it all is the basis of our tech and manufacturing economy being military/industrial.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:02 AM   #39
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,505
Default

Millions of people will lose their unemployment in a couple of days if nothing is done.

'Fiscal cliff' cost for you per CNN

$0 - $20,00 = $412 added taxes to you
$20,000 - $40,000 = $1,231
$40,000 - $65,000 =$1984
$65,000 - $108,00 = $3540
$108,000 - =$4173

several tax deductions expire
alternative min. tax kicks in
payroll tax holidy expires


Thank you TeaParty you ****ing twits.
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:05 AM   #40
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 22,371

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Gilgamesh
Default

I say Obama throw down that Brandon Marshall Law and start bangin' hammers.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:26 AM   #41
Cito Pelon
Attack at all times . . .
 
Cito Pelon's Avatar
 
Shabby County Seat

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AFC Championshipville, NotTooShabby County
Posts: 16,008

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Slim Shabby
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meck77 View Post
Our government reminds me of the Tim Tebow lead Broncos. You have one guy running up and down the field trying to make plays even though he's a very poor passer and poor QB/leader in general. Oh but he had heart! Rather than steady leadership throughout the game Tebow would lead us to the fiscal cliff. Come to find out later not many on the team respected Tebow which was an obvious problem.

Effective leaders bring people together and make everyone better. See Peyton Manning. Barrack Obama is no Manning.
Well, that's true. Obama doesn't grab Congress by the lapels and say "let's get something done".
Cito Pelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:36 AM   #42
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,649

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meck77 View Post
Our government reminds me of the Tim Tebow lead Broncos. You have one guy running up and down the field trying to make plays even though he's a very poor passer and poor QB/leader in general. Oh but he had heart! Rather than steady leadership throughout the game Tebow would lead us to the fiscal cliff. Come to find out later not many on the team respected Tebow which was an obvious problem.

Effective leaders bring people together and make everyone better. See Peyton Manning. Barrack Obama is no Manning.
What an ignorant post with absolutely no basis in reality. But then again nothing you post is based on reality.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:53 AM   #43
Cito Pelon
Attack at all times . . .
 
Cito Pelon's Avatar
 
Shabby County Seat

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AFC Championshipville, NotTooShabby County
Posts: 16,008

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Slim Shabby
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda View Post
Millions of people will lose their unemployment in a couple of days if nothing is done.

'Fiscal cliff' cost for you per CNN

$0 - $20,00 = $412 added taxes to you
$20,000 - $40,000 = $1,231
$40,000 - $65,000 =$1984
$65,000 - $108,00 = $3540
$108,000 - =$4173

several tax deductions expire
alternative min. tax kicks in
payroll tax holidy expires


Thank you TeaParty you ****ing twits.
That Tea Party is holding the whole country hostage.
Cito Pelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 12:13 PM   #44
Jetland
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
What an ignorant post with absolutely no basis in reality. But then again nothing you post is based on reality.
it really does need to be put on the mount Rushmore of crazy
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 12:21 PM   #45
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 11,990

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cito Pelon View Post
That Tea Party is holding the whole country hostage.
The GOP should push that intransigent group off a 'cliff.'
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:03 PM   #46
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cito Pelon View Post
That Tea Party is holding the whole country hostage.
If rich people are going to pay 15 grand more then other people shouldnt complain about 400-1500 bucks etc. You are getting exactly what you paid for a tax and spend President. Don't blame the tea party they voted for Romney.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:03 PM   #47
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,636
Default

We should all go over the cliff together! Stap up liberals and enjoy the ride! YOU ARE THE CAPTIAN OF THE SHIP NOW!
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:12 PM   #48
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,732

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
We should all go over the cliff together! Stap up liberals and enjoy the ride! YOU ARE THE CAPTIAN OF THE SHIP NOW!
I've seen this bull**** a lot.

Since when does controlling <1.5/3 branches of the federal government mean a particular party is in control?

With the absurdity of currently filibuster rules, it's more like 1/3.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:14 PM   #49
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,732

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
If rich people are going to pay 15 grand more then other people shouldnt complain about 400-1500 bucks etc. You are getting exactly what you paid for a tax and spend President. Don't blame the tea party they voted for Romney.
15 grand to the people who might actually see that kind of raise is equivalent to change lost in the couch to them.

400-1500 bucks to the others actually matters.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:19 PM   #50
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 35,035

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

This isn't that hard of a concept. Raise the Medicare eligibility age and use alot more restrictive rules for inflationary increases and then gut the Bush cuts over 250k. You can't have one without the other.
__________________
SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 PM.


Denver Broncos