Hypothetical...home budget - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 02-07-2005, 03:18 AM

OK....So I made a couple purchaces last year. Well ALOT of them. See , I am into Pokeman and maxed out my Credit Cards on toys. Now I am in a bit of a bind with my creditors and have to make some tough descisions. First off I have decided to Stop paying for Grampas nursing home, and I cannot afford Grammas Medications, so I decided to switch to tylenol for all her pains.
Also, my kids will simply have to do without new clothes for a couple years, so I can funnel the funds into paying off my debt. I figure by the time I get promoted (about three years) I should be able to afford to get them new shoes, and hopefully Gramps lives long enough to reep the benefits of my descisions.
I need to do these things primarily because......I am commited to my Pokeman and am not in a position to simply abandon my toys. I just hope my Wife understands the need to cut back on the " little " things we use in day to day life. I am sure my kids will never even notice the loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - President Bush's budget for 2006 cuts spending for a wide range of public health programs, including several to protect the nation against bioterrorist attacks and to respond to medical emergencies, budget documents show.

Faced with constraints on spending caused by record budget deficits and the demands of the war in Iraq, administration officials said on Friday that they had increased the budget for some health programs but cut many others, including some that address urgent health care needs.

The documents show, for example, that Mr. Bush would cut spending for several programs that deal with epidemics, chronic diseases and obesity. His plan would also cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 9 percent, to $6.9 billion, the documents show.

The cuts are part of an attempt to control the federal deficit, while increasing spending on certain priority programs. Administration officials have said that in the budget, to be unveiled on Monday, Mr. Bush will propose that overall domestic spending, aside from entitlements, grows less than the rate of inflation next year.

But the administration is proposing to increase the Pentagon budget by 4.8 percent, to $419.3 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, according to Defense Department budget documents obtained by The New York Times. That sum does not include the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, now running about $5 billion a month. Within a few weeks, the administration is expected to request about $80 billion to cover those costs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/politics/05cuts.html

Kadath · 02-07-2005, 01:22 PM

Okay, dude, first of all, it's Pokemon, duh!!

In all seriousness, I (even though I am such a pacifist that I'm for the Peace Tax, a means by which taxpayers opposed to violence could have their tax money spent on things other than tanks) would never compare our defense budget to a toy obsession. I do, however, strongly disagree with this country's priorities. Sadly, nothing is going to change until we get a Democrat back in the White House. This all looks very similar to Reagan Era spending, and we lived through that. The Republicans spend a bunch of money on defense and try to build an empire, and the Democrats come behind them and force us back on track.

Willravel · 02-07-2005, 01:36 PM

At the beginning of your post, I was beginning to both fear and pity you. By the end of your post, I respected you even more! Clever post.

I see your anaolgy as apt. A swtich over to an empirical government (more military + less civil rights + fake war = move to empire) will only hurt everyone (even the republicans). Some people are so short-sighted.

Quote:

The Republicans spend a bunch of money on defense and try to build an empire, and the Democrats come behind them and force us back on track.

Can the Democrats and Libertarians really do this? We were supposed to make our huge stand during the last election. 51% didn't come through. Is it possible that the cycle has an end? I hope not, because if it is we're in for some very uncomfortable times (I say uncomfortable because the average American seems to want to be comfortable and be left alone).

sob · 02-07-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Okay, dude, first of all, it's Pokemon, duh!!

In all seriousness, I (even though I am such a pacifist that I'm for the Peace Tax, a means by which taxpayers opposed to violence could have their tax money spent on things other than tanks) would never compare our defense budget to a toy obsession. I do, however, strongly disagree with this country's priorities. Sadly, nothing is going to change until we get a Democrat back in the White House. This all looks very similar to Reagan Era spending, and we lived through that. The Republicans spend a bunch of money on defense and try to build an empire, and the Democrats come behind them and force us back on track.

Funny, I would have said the Democrats screw up the economy, and the Republicans always have to clean it up. I haven't forgotten Jimmy Carter's 13% annual inflation, and we're just now getting over the Clinton-Gore recession.

However, I like the idea of using a "menu" for taxes. Definitely NOT on my menu would be most welfare, foreign aid, and the salaries of Teddy Kennedy and Robert "KKK" Byrd.

As for the defense budget,

Link

Quote:

Friend or Foe – China’s Intentions Toward the United States

Years of investment and careful planning by China to become the world’s preeminent manufacturing and possibly military power are increasingly being realized. As industries and manufacturers from around the world flock to China for cheap labor, China is carefully strategizing how to dominate global production in several industries, the foremost of which is shipbuilding. In this regard, China has dramatically increased its investments in shipbuilding – investments which are producing chilling implications.

In an analysis by the American Shipbuilding Association, China’s global market share of commercial shipbuilding has gone from virtually zero in 1990 to around 14% in 2004. With its commercial shipbuilding market established, China has been concentrating on the production of ships for its navy. According to a study by the Center for Defense Information, China ranks third globally in defense spending behind the United States and Russia. Starting with the purchase of naval ships from Russia, the Chinese have been transitioning to independent design and production of its own ships – rolling out the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines in December of last year. Based on current build rates, it is estimated that China will have more submarines than the United States by 2010, and will eclipse the size of the entire U.S. fleet by 2015, or sooner.

In order to learn more about China’s economic and military capabilities, a Congressional delegation made up of Representatives Randy Forbes (R-VA), Ike Skelton (D-MO), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rick Larsen (D-WA), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Steve Pearce (R-NM), and Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) recently toured China, returning to the U.S. with grave impressions about China’s ability to make good on its plans to become the world’s leading manufacturer of ships, and left Members uneasy about China’s future military intentions. Expressing his observations in a February 1st article that appeared in The Hill, Rep. Neil Abercrombie was quoted as saying "If you want to see a bunch of …serious-faced members of Congress, you should’ve seen us after visiting [their shipyards]… capability is hardly the word. Those ships are flying out of there." In a January 24th interview with William Matthews, a reporter for Defense News, Rep. Forbes, stated that "we [the Congressional delegation] weren’t sure whether they [China] were going to be our best friend or our worst enemy." Calls are already being made on Capital Hill for in-depth hearings on China’s naval shipbuilding and intentions.

Though no act of overt aggression has been made towards the U.S. since the 2001 grounding of an American naval patrol aircraft, China is not sitting idly by. In a January 18th article that appeared in the Washington Times, reporter Bill Gertz outlined the contents of an internal report prepared for the Defense Department. In excerpts from the Washington Times, article, "China is adopting a 'string of pearls' strategy of bases and diplomatic ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China…" - with many of these "pearls" being located along major commercial sea lanes. The article suggested that there is increasing concern that China seeks to militarily control the sea lanes, with a navy large enough to take on the United States should this country intervene. [All together now, class: T A I W A N]

Discussions on what is now being realized as a legitimate, rather than a theoretical threat, cannot occur soon enough. And what may have been a threat that was considered to be decades away, could materialize much sooner. As has been widely reported, the European Union is just steps away from lifting its arms embargo towards China. Though many U.S. allies have, for years, been selling technology to China for commercial use, much of that technology is considered "dual use", having both a commercial and military application. By formally lifting the embargo on the sale of military technology it is likely that technology transfers to China will greatly increase. Keep in mind that much of the technology is of U.S. origin and design.

If China’s intentions shift to aggression and hostility, the United States will be in jeopardy. Years of underinvestment in our naval fleet have dwindled its numbers to 289 ships. Though our Navy is the superior power on the seas today, numbers of ships are critical. Outnumbered by a navy that might use our own technologies against us is a rather terrifying prospect. It is a fear that neither the Administration, Congress, nor the Nation can afford to ignore.

Just what I've been expecting--to have a missile aimed at me, guided by technology Clinton and Loral sold to the Chinese.

guy44 · 02-07-2005, 08:17 PM

Yeah, the Chinese are about to attack. Sure. That makes so much sense I can't stop thinking about where to put my bomb shelter. The fact that China owns a HUGE portion of American debt, and any negative economic event for the US would be disastrous to them clearly leads them to foment attack plans against us. Anyone who actually believes that China is going to attack the United States is a certifiable wingnut.

The_Dunedan · 02-07-2005, 08:19 PM

Let's not forget the Israelis, who happily sell the Chinese all the technical data and hardware they can manage. That fighter-jet that collided with our P-3A a few years back was carrying Chinese-made versions of our AAMRAM and SideWinder missiles, which Israel admitted to selling.

IMO, the biggest problem with China is that the Chinese have no ROOM. They're rapidly reaching the point beyond which they will have to begin either conquering terrirory or killing off large numbers of people. Granted, they've never had any difficulties with Genocide in the past. However, if they decide to strike northwards, into Mongolia and Russia, to gain the land they need....this would be a Very Bad Thing. The US and Russia are erstwhile allies in the War On Some Terrorism, and the US would probably respond to any Chinese attack on Russia...which would then drag us into a ground-based conflict with the largest army on Earth. This scenario is universally recognized as being totally unwinnable by non-nuclear means.

flstf · 02-07-2005, 08:56 PM

I agree that the federal government taxes and spends way too much. Perhaps we should establish what the original purpose of the central government is in the first place.

Over the years the feds have grown and grown into all walks of life, many of which were originally intended to be handled by the states. The feds main priority should be national defense and after that managing some interstate commerce like highway systems and antitrust enforcement and a very few other things.

Unlike tecoyah's imaginary budget the federal government has grown to include many pokemon type interests. Not that we should overspend on national defense but first we should cut spending in some of the pokemon type departments such as Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, State and International Assistance, Small Business Administration, etc..

Kadath · 02-08-2005, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Can the Democrats and Libertarians really do this? We were supposed to make our huge stand during the last election. 51% didn't come through. Is it possible that the cycle has an end? I hope not, because if it is we're in for some very uncomfortable times (I say uncomfortable because the average American seems to want to be comfortable and be left alone).

What were Reagan's reelection numbers? Mondale got like 13 electoral votes? Remember Reagan Democrats? And then Bush Sr smashed Dukakis by a four to one ratio. I think we'll see the cycle end again. We're in for some bad times, but people will wake up. We need Roddy Piper to come around again.

drakers · 02-08-2005, 08:27 PM

President Bush has a serious problem when all he is focusing on increasing in the budget is military spending. I got a reason, he'll probably decide to attack N. Korea and Iran at the same time thinking it was strategic or it would faster than attacking one country at a time. Well all Sarcasm and all, don't even talk about No Child Left Behind, that program is a joke. A friend of my wife's is a elementary teacher and she said the program's goal is simply to pass ALL students no matter if they understand the material or if they need more time to learn it. That isn't teaching that's just raising a bunch of kids who will be even more behind once they hit highschool. Above all, decreasing of all other programs (including farm subsities--I'm from Iowa but wasn't raised in the country--which is going to piss off a lot of farmers here in Iowa) will just create a less unified and strong country; more people will be left behind with Bush's insensitivity.

02-07-2005, 03:18 AM	#1 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Hypothetical...home budget OK....So I made a couple purchaces last year. Well ALOT of them. See , I am into Pokeman and maxed out my Credit Cards on toys. Now I am in a bit of a bind with my creditors and have to make some tough descisions. First off I have decided to Stop paying for Grampas nursing home, and I cannot afford Grammas Medications, so I decided to switch to tylenol for all her pains. Also, my kids will simply have to do without new clothes for a couple years, so I can funnel the funds into paying off my debt. I figure by the time I get promoted (about three years) I should be able to afford to get them new shoes, and hopefully Gramps lives long enough to reep the benefits of my descisions. I need to do these things primarily because......I am commited to my Pokeman and am not in a position to simply abandon my toys. I just hope my Wife understands the need to cut back on the " little " things we use in day to day life. I am sure my kids will never even notice the loss. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - President Bush's budget for 2006 cuts spending for a wide range of public health programs, including several to protect the nation against bioterrorist attacks and to respond to medical emergencies, budget documents show. Faced with constraints on spending caused by record budget deficits and the demands of the war in Iraq, administration officials said on Friday that they had increased the budget for some health programs but cut many others, including some that address urgent health care needs. The documents show, for example, that Mr. Bush would cut spending for several programs that deal with epidemics, chronic diseases and obesity. His plan would also cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 9 percent, to $6.9 billion, the documents show. The cuts are part of an attempt to control the federal deficit, while increasing spending on certain priority programs. Administration officials have said that in the budget, to be unveiled on Monday, Mr. Bush will propose that overall domestic spending, aside from entitlements, grows less than the rate of inflation next year. But the administration is proposing to increase the Pentagon budget by 4.8 percent, to $419.3 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, according to Defense Department budget documents obtained by The New York Times. That sum does not include the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, now running about $5 billion a month. Within a few weeks, the administration is expected to request about $80 billion to cover those costs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/politics/05cuts.html __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-07-2005, 01:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Okay, dude, first of all, it's Pokemon, duh!! In all seriousness, I (even though I am such a pacifist that I'm for the Peace Tax, a means by which taxpayers opposed to violence could have their tax money spent on things other than tanks) would never compare our defense budget to a toy obsession. I do, however, strongly disagree with this country's priorities. Sadly, nothing is going to change until we get a Democrat back in the White House. This all looks very similar to Reagan Era spending, and we lived through that. The Republicans spend a bunch of money on defense and try to build an empire, and the Democrats come behind them and force us back on track. __________________ it's quiet in here

02-07-2005, 08:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Yeah, the Chinese are about to attack. Sure. That makes so much sense I can't stop thinking about where to put my bomb shelter. The fact that China owns a HUGE portion of American debt, and any negative economic event for the US would be disastrous to them clearly leads them to foment attack plans against us. Anyone who actually believes that China is going to attack the United States is a certifiable wingnut. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-07-2005, 08:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Let's not forget the Israelis, who happily sell the Chinese all the technical data and hardware they can manage. That fighter-jet that collided with our P-3A a few years back was carrying Chinese-made versions of our AAMRAM and SideWinder missiles, which Israel admitted to selling. IMO, the biggest problem with China is that the Chinese have no ROOM. They're rapidly reaching the point beyond which they will have to begin either conquering terrirory or killing off large numbers of people. Granted, they've never had any difficulties with Genocide in the past. However, if they decide to strike northwards, into Mongolia and Russia, to gain the land they need....this would be a Very Bad Thing. The US and Russia are erstwhile allies in the War On Some Terrorism, and the US would probably respond to any Chinese attack on Russia...which would then drag us into a ground-based conflict with the largest army on Earth. This scenario is universally recognized as being totally unwinnable by non-nuclear means. Last edited by The_Dunedan; 02-07-2005 at 08:22 PM..

02-08-2005, 08:27 PM	#9 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	President Bush has a serious problem when all he is focusing on increasing in the budget is military spending. I got a reason, he'll probably decide to attack N. Korea and Iran at the same time thinking it was strategic or it would faster than attacking one country at a time. Well all Sarcasm and all, don't even talk about No Child Left Behind, that program is a joke. A friend of my wife's is a elementary teacher and she said the program's goal is simply to pass ALL students no matter if they understand the material or if they need more time to learn it. That isn't teaching that's just raising a bunch of kids who will be even more behind once they hit highschool. Above all, decreasing of all other programs (including farm subsities--I'm from Iowa but wasn't raised in the country--which is going to piss off a lot of farmers here in Iowa) will just create a less unified and strong country; more people will be left behind with Bush's insensitivity. __________________ Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

02-07-2005, 08:56 PM	#7 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I agree that the federal government taxes and spends way too much. Perhaps we should establish what the original purpose of the central government is in the first place. Over the years the feds have grown and grown into all walks of life, many of which were originally intended to be handled by the states. The feds main priority should be national defense and after that managing some interstate commerce like highway systems and antitrust enforcement and a very few other things. Unlike tecoyah's imaginary budget the federal government has grown to include many pokemon type interests. Not that we should overspend on national defense but first we should cut spending in some of the pokemon type departments such as Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, State and International Assistance, Small Business Administration, etc..