Admirable Fiscal Responsibility
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Good Question. I'm going to assume the amount of his total budget does go up annually. In Feb. 09' I do know that Congress raised it's staff budgets by 7.5% and some of that was because in the Senate, republicans who had lost seats in the recent elections wanted to maintain the same staff levels as though they still held those same seats. And not that democrats weren't interested in fattening their pockets and having the repubs. to blame it on. Politicians love scapegoats. I'd assume the repubs. wanted to blend those displaced staffers into current staffing but that's a guess on my part.
As for the last 3 years, according to the California Independent Voter Network, Paul returned the following amounts:
2008' $58k (for operations year 2007')
2009' $90k (for operations year 2008')
2010' $100k (for operations year 2009')
On a humorous note and taking a que from Paul's inside the beltway nickname, should we really be surprised at this? I mean how much does it really cost to just say NO!
Vote tally from Texas Congressional District 14, Paul won the republican primary last night with 81% of the vote against 3 opponents with some backing by beltway/party GOPers who want Paul to go down. A trend of returning office funding is just another glaring reminder of the lack of frugality and fiscal responsibility in conducting the "People's Bidness!" A stark reminder even to the democrats per the linked Huffington piece above which explains again why Paul is soundly hated by both political sides.
klein
Für Meno :)
On debt, Canada shows us the way out
Wondering how seriously to take the Obama administration’s claims that its new $3.8 trillion budget plan represents fiscal restraint? Look northward, to Canada. Compared to the belt-tightening that government imposed on itself in recent years, Obama’s effort appears trivial indeed.
More:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/on_debt_canada_shows_us_the_wa.html
My comment: We are not as socialist as many US citizens think.
Wondering how seriously to take the Obama administration’s claims that its new $3.8 trillion budget plan represents fiscal restraint? Look northward, to Canada. Compared to the belt-tightening that government imposed on itself in recent years, Obama’s effort appears trivial indeed.
More:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/on_debt_canada_shows_us_the_wa.html
My comment: We are not as socialist as many US citizens think.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Klein,
When your country no longer suckles the US teat, I'll then take your bogus claims on a more serious nature!
Where Matthew does error in his conclusion on Canada's defense spending savings it that the US military global footprint maintains not only the openness of transportation routes and sea lanes at least in a sense that lone countries are afraid to exploit these areas for their own revenue purposes but that also the US military maintains a hegemic structure for western economic practices and chiefly for dominance of our currencies over and above potential non-western rivals. Petro dollars anyone!
If Canada (or other nations for that matter) had to all of a sudden pay it's "fairshare" of enjoying this free ride, I wonder then what the effects would be to your nation's national interests then? I for one want to withdraw all global US military forces from around the globe and then force all you free loaders and the free loading corp. interests to then have to foot the full bill of global trade to where the producer and consumer face the full price of this transaction instead of having the US taxpayer subsidize. Ever wonder what that true foreign labor cost would be if the US soldier wasn't there to protect those trade routes open for those "so-called" cheaper goods to make it here in the first place?
Yep, that's an intervention that sustains a market most likely unsustainable without. Not only are we losing jobs but we're paying again to protect them. Time to stop doing so. Bring the troops and our jobs home!
When your country no longer suckles the US teat, I'll then take your bogus claims on a more serious nature!
Where Matthew does error in his conclusion on Canada's defense spending savings it that the US military global footprint maintains not only the openness of transportation routes and sea lanes at least in a sense that lone countries are afraid to exploit these areas for their own revenue purposes but that also the US military maintains a hegemic structure for western economic practices and chiefly for dominance of our currencies over and above potential non-western rivals. Petro dollars anyone!
If Canada (or other nations for that matter) had to all of a sudden pay it's "fairshare" of enjoying this free ride, I wonder then what the effects would be to your nation's national interests then? I for one want to withdraw all global US military forces from around the globe and then force all you free loaders and the free loading corp. interests to then have to foot the full bill of global trade to where the producer and consumer face the full price of this transaction instead of having the US taxpayer subsidize. Ever wonder what that true foreign labor cost would be if the US soldier wasn't there to protect those trade routes open for those "so-called" cheaper goods to make it here in the first place?
Yep, that's an intervention that sustains a market most likely unsustainable without. Not only are we losing jobs but we're paying again to protect them. Time to stop doing so. Bring the troops and our jobs home!
klein
Für Meno :)
For a small country as ours, with a population, less then California, we do more then our fairshare.
We have our Navy all over the world deployed, from the Artic, to Haiti, over Somalia (keeping the pirates away), to the red sea, and the middle east, all the way to asia.
Canada is also all paid up with the UN, where the USA owes billions.
Here is a list of our fleet :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Navy_ships
Just because we mostly don't use them for war purposes, we do use them to guard container ships full of goods for export/import.
And also on standby security incase of a sudden war.
Today is budget day in Canada.
Cuts will be announced today, and I can almost sense a raise in the GST (going from 5 to 6%).
I will find out later today.
Hope, it's not too bad.
PS: We don't need middle east petro dollars... we're an oil exporting nation.
But, we protect that free flow as well, for other nations to enjoy.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Klein, if you want to export anything send us some Tim Horton's. They are much better than Dunkin Donuts.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
I wash down my dinner with a beer
tieguy
Banned
klein
Für Meno :)
Yes, 1 of those single people, that never had kids, that pay the highest tax rate in the country, with absolute no deductions, nor subsidies.
Such as child benifits, or daycare subsidies, plus lower income tax rates.
1 of those guys that paid well over 100K, (inflation and interesst added), in unemployment insurance thru out his 34 years of work, and has never used any of it, until now.
If I was 55 already, I wouldn't even bother getting another job, I would just early retire now.
Got a few more years to go, though.
I haven't even had a vacation since year 2000. A few 3 day trips, but thats it.
And, it's time to kinda have a midlife break from all that hard work I have done in my life.
Another article you should read :
Maple Leaf Markets
Canada Stands Tall
Gordon Pape, The Canada Report, 02.26.10, 01:55 PM EST
For global portfolio exposure forget exotic countries and invest in Canada.
Ever since Canada came into existence, the country has lived in the shadow of the U.S. It was always the poor cousin, the inconsequential northern neighbor that was mostly known for Mounties, polar bears, cold fronts and, latterly, seal hunts.
Truth be told, why should Americans pay much attention to Canada? The U.S. is the richest country on earth, enjoys the highest standard of living, has larger than life leaders and deploys the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. Canada may be bigger geographically but with a population smaller than that of California, it simply hasn't counted for much.
more: http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/26/ba...-energy-trusts.html?partner=relatedstoriesbox
And yes, I did, and paid, my part for Canada to get there.
tieguy
Banned
Your justification is yours to deal with and you have to rectify with yourself.
In this case I'm addressing your point that Canada is not as socialistic as americans think.
In that context I see someone that admits to being on unemployment long term that does not need it.
klein
Für Meno :)
I see rich north-americans getting child tax credit, that don't need it. Putting thier kids in public schools, that single guys like I pay for, that don't need it (they can pay private schools). The list goes on.
Never mind all the smart tax write offs they make (that they don't need).
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Now Klien had a coherent counter-point to K-mac's response but the mean girls add no substance except personal insults. Brown-Cafer's come to "Current Events" to engage in debates, inform themselves, and learn something new. But thanks for exposing a perfect example of why people avoid this forum of drudging thru the muck to get to some informative content....
tieguy
Banned
Klein made the point that canada was not as socialist as we think
My quote which you highligt directly contradicts that point. If someone who was discharged on fault is still living on unemployment then canada is probably every bit as socialist as we think.
your lecture on treating each other with respect is actually one of disrespect.
you should learn to live by the principles you chose to lecture us on.
I'll await your lecturing wkmac on his flatulence' post.
klein
Für Meno :)
Something you should know Tie :
When you get dismissed here, and file for Unemployment.
It is mandatory for the Unemployment office to call the former Employer, to verify my statement I gave to them.
Giving the fact, my job was all but done, except to take my lunchbreak, and clock out.
They realized, the "sentence" UPS gave me was too harsh, and by no means, did I try to get fired on my own wrong doing, or for missing work, stealing, etc.
I simply made a silly mistake, that I thought would be a warning letter. Not a dismissal.
And unemployment seen that as well.
I suppose it helped that I am a first time user of it, too. And, therfor even get longer benefits, then if I wasn`t.
When you get dismissed here, and file for Unemployment.
It is mandatory for the Unemployment office to call the former Employer, to verify my statement I gave to them.
Giving the fact, my job was all but done, except to take my lunchbreak, and clock out.
They realized, the "sentence" UPS gave me was too harsh, and by no means, did I try to get fired on my own wrong doing, or for missing work, stealing, etc.
I simply made a silly mistake, that I thought would be a warning letter. Not a dismissal.
And unemployment seen that as well.
I suppose it helped that I am a first time user of it, too. And, therfor even get longer benefits, then if I wasn`t.
tieguy
Banned
and the guy that thought you being fired for drinking and driving on the job was too harsh..was he drunk too?
klein
Für Meno :)
fixed it for ya !
Similar threads
