Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby yoop » Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:35 pm

cost over runs are built into the deception, we have never met a deadline concerning any armament we've had built, in fact no one even expects too, look at the cost over runs building the Abrams tank, the m-16, apache helicoptor not to mention the newest cash cow F-35.
thing is the perception that without these weapons we will fall behind other world powers, hense we cut back on civilian labor and scale back on troops to save money, meanwhile we allow crooks to steal from our pocket books with increased spending and time to complete these projects, so long that by the time they are completed the technoligy is out dated and we have to start all over.

the tax payer has deep pockets, no private business could with stand this abuse, and it looks like we can't any more either, world powers are destroyed from within, and these military defense contractors have sure done there best to make that happen.

hope you don't lose your JOB APB, I have several friends that have lost there's, it's a recession when your neighbors are out of work, it's a depression when you are :wink:
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby wallyuwl » Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:51 pm

But we need all those overly expensive fancy weapons because of the union jobs associated with making them.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 11837
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby Waldo » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:47 pm

APB wrote:Surely cuts are being realized across the board in defense spending, right? Not if you're a part of the continually under-performing F-35 program.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/02/Pentagon-s-Too-Big-Fail-F-35-Gets-Another-106-Billion

And the hits just keep on coming for the embattled fighter program:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/27/New-Red-Alert-Billions-Over-Budget-F-35-Fighter

So why aren't these contractors being held accountable for these continual cost overruns and failures?
All together, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems donate millions of dollars every couple of years to lawmakers in the Capitol. Following slightly differing time frames, their individual giving has grown enormously since the JSF program started in 1997. The main contractor, Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman led the pack in 2014, each contributing $4.1 million to campaigns. UT spent $2.1 million, and BAE gave $1.4 million. For all four, 2014 was a record year.

Giving from the contractors typically favors Republican candidates by large margins. In the case of Lockheed, for instance, Republican support generally hovers at 60 percent of its total giving (2008 and 2010 were two recent exceptions to the rule, but, as seen in the chart above, Republicans are once again the favored party).

At the top of their recipients list, however, are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle with powerful spots in important committees. The House Armed Services Committee, House Appropriations Committee, and Senate Appropriations Committees were the biggest targets of all of the companies; lawmakers in each received $1.7 million, $1.3 million, and $658,499, respectively.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is the only lawmaker in the top five of each company. Now the Senate minority party’s No. 2, and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Durbin in 2014 took $62,000 from Northrop Grumman, $54,000 from UT, $29,600 from Lockheed, and $29,299 from BAE.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) showed up in the top five of two of the contractors — $27,400 from Lockheed, $23,500 from BAE — as did Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) — $14,000 from BAE, and $11,500 from UT.

Members of the House appropriations and Armed Services Committees were up there as well — often taking in more than the lawmakers in the Senate.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, received $75,900 from Lockheed, and $29,000 from Northrop Grumman. The top Democrat in the Committee, Washington Rep. Adam Smith took in $28,200 from Northrop Grumman. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the ranking member of a subcommittee in Armed Services took in $11,500 from UT. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), just a member of the Committee, got $11,500. Hunter is also the son of former House Armed Services Chairman, former Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-Calif.).

In Appropriations, several subcommittee chairs make a showing in the companies’ top fives as well. Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) the chairwoman for the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee and vice-chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee received $73,350 from Lockheed (Granger also lists herself as co-chair of the JSF caucus on her website with a link to the 2011 press release announcing the caucus). The ranking New Jersey lawmaker on the panel, Republican Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, saw $73,350 from Lockheed (Frelinghuysen is also the chairman of the Homeland Security and Defense Committee). Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.) took in $35,700 from Northrop Grumman, and $13,600 from BAE.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/f-35-contractors-under-fire-spent-record-amounts-in-2014/

It's all a charade. A sickening charade of corruption. And nobody seems to care.


Like I explained, its how the game works. Its more profitable for a gov't contractor to suck than it is for them to be good. They aren't paid for what they produce, they are paid for their effort, no matter what the quality of that effort is. The poorer the quality of that effort, the longer it takes and more effort it requires, the more $$$ the contractor makes.

Its perverse and backwards. Real accountability would stop it quickly. But there is none, a lack thereof is built into the system. The only thing anyone (but a handful of politicians) can do about it is laugh at it. Getting angry about it pointless since people enable it with their votes. And it is pretty much strictly a congressional thing since Congress appropriates, being contractors leaves them outside of the executive sphere of influence.
Last edited by Waldo on Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby Waldo » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:59 pm

wallyuwl wrote:But we need all those overly expensive fancy weapons because of the union jobs associated with making them.


Weapons?

This sort of thing is not limited to weapons. Major weapon systems are the most obviously egregious because they can be simply reduced to a line item and the dollar figures are huge, most aspects of gov't contracting can't be unwound to such a simple bottom line; usually there is no way to track.

When looking at costs and overruns and efficiency as a %, I would expect major weapon systems to actually be some of the better gov't contracts.

I lost my "virginity" so to speak, with this sort of thing years ago. In the early phases of a multibillion dollar radar rollout, we saw a competitors product. It was far cheaper, less than a quarter of the cost, and required far less infrastructure rework because it better used existing systems (on top of being cheaper). Plus it was arguably better side by side (the end users preferred the cheaper system). But it had to be hidden when certain people were around, and it was quickly and quietly killed, because the more expensive system was what was chosen, period, and only one system was allowed. Of course the choice was made at the congressional level; it was nothing more than defense contractor welfare.
Image
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby yoop » Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:32 am

wallyuwl wrote:But we need all those overly expensive fancy weapons because of the union jobs associated with making them.


read this, it explains what happens to the savings garnered when a co. goes non union, and the quality of labor as a result, people complain about union wages, problem is non union labor doesn't lesson the cost to consumer, it only increases revenue for the owner, who uses it to buy who knows what, labor gets another sht sandwich, and the consumer gets lower value for his money

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/0 ... tt-walker/
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby APB » Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:55 pm

yoop wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:But we need all those overly expensive fancy weapons because of the union jobs associated with making them.


read this, it explains what happens to the savings garnered when a co. goes non union, and the quality of labor as a result, people complain about union wages, problem is non union labor doesn't lesson the cost to consumer, it only increases revenue for the owner, who uses it to buy who knows what, labor gets another sht sandwich, and the consumer gets lower value for his money

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/0 ... tt-walker/

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/06/17/repeal-wisconsin-prevailing-wage-law-column/28881761/
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8223
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby yoop » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:34 pm

UW is already feeling the pinch from Walker with decreased enrollment, and explains how Walker basically took over control of the university

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... dency.html
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby raptorman » Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:27 pm

yoop wrote:UW is already feeling the pinch from Walker with decreased enrollment, and explains how Walker basically took over control of the university

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... dency.html

Ah yeah. OK. Yup, let's blame the current Governor for declining birth rates 17-18 years ago. Apparently he didn't do enough to spread his seed around.

A drop in the number of high school students and competition from for-profit and online universities are factors pinching enrollment at some University of Wisconsin System schools, forcing them to fine-tune their recruiting efforts.

The issue is expected to deepen in the next few years, and university leaders are bracing for the financial fallout if new recruitment and retention efforts don't work.

"We're entering into a trough we'll come out of in several years," UW System spokesman David Giroux said Tuesday, referring to a demographic shift in Wisconsin brought by declining birthrates that started 17 to 18 years ago. "We knew this was coming," Giroux said.



http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/ ... 85431.html
Since 1994, the QB sacked by Vikings more than any other QB in the league. Aaron Rodgers.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby APB » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:03 am

Yoop quoting Al Jezeera in America sources in his "crusade" against Scott Walker is hee-freakin'-larious!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8223
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby yoop » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:44 pm

APB wrote:Yoop quoting Al Jezeera in America sources in his "crusade" against Scott Walker is hee-freakin'-larious!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


I didn't even notice :lol: I'am delighted that you got a good laugh though, which honestly is more important in the grand scheme of things, we have so little control of these elections, Scott Walker, through corporate campaign financing is bound to be center stage come election time, and if elected will increase the gap of inequailty of poor to rich, will attempt to stream line public and private workers, and freeze wages, and that will affect the common man.

so Laugh now as laughter may become extinct once Walker is elected.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby APB » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:55 pm

yoop wrote:
APB wrote:Yoop quoting Al Jezeera in America sources in his "crusade" against Scott Walker is hee-freakin'-larious!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


I didn't even notice :lol: I'am delighted that you got a good laugh though, which honestly is more important in the grand scheme of things, we have so little control of these elections, Scott Walker, through corporate campaign financing is bound to be center stage come election time, and if elected will increase the gap of inequailty of poor to rich, will attempt to stream line public and private workers, and freeze wages, and that will affect the common man.

so Laugh now as laughter may become extinct once Walker is elected.

Spoken like a true believer...Allah Akbar! :lol:
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8223
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby Waldo » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:13 pm

raptorman wrote:Ah yeah. OK. Yup, let's blame the current Governor for declining birth rates 17-18 years ago. Apparently he didn't do enough to spread his seed around.


Though I do wonder if he is accelerating the problem, given that people with some degree of mobility will generally relocate to the best location they can to raise their kids. The constant assault on Wi's schools certainly isn't making young parents want to stay; if you have the ability to flip to Mn or Il as your kids near school age, you certainly think real hard about doing it.

Declining fertility though in the US is a much longer term problem than last 17-18 years. Its been in constant decline since the late 60's; immigration and increasing longevity are the only things keeping the US population from shrinking. Most of the rest of the 1st word is grappling with the same problem; we actually have it pretty mild compared to elsewhere (whereas Japan has been decimated by it), noone has really figured it out tho; why don't people want to make babies anymore?
Image
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby wallyuwl » Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:05 pm

Waldo wrote:
raptorman wrote:Ah yeah. OK. Yup, let's blame the current Governor for declining birth rates 17-18 years ago. Apparently he didn't do enough to spread his seed around.


Though I do wonder if he is accelerating the problem, given that people with some degree of mobility will generally relocate to the best location they can to raise their kids. The constant assault on Wi's schools certainly isn't making young parents want to stay; if you have the ability to flip to Mn or Il as your kids near school age, you certainly think real hard about doing it.

Declining fertility though in the US is a much longer term problem than last 17-18 years. Its been in constant decline since the late 60's; immigration and increasing longevity are the only things keeping the US population from shrinking. Most of the rest of the 1st word is grappling with the same problem; we actually have it pretty mild compared to elsewhere (whereas Japan has been decimated by it), noone has really figured it out tho; why don't people want to make babies anymore?


WI still has some of the best public schools in the nation on the whole, certainly better than most in IL except for the rich northern and western Chicago suburbs. Overall, I'd take WI over IL schools. That said, all public schools pretty much suck now. My kid(s), when I have them, will go to a private school.

As for universities, it is a national trend that started decades ago of decreasing state money for universities. Everyone is screaming bloody murder at Walker's cuts, which are draconian, but they are nearly identical in percentage to the cuts under Doyle that you hardly heard a peep about from the liberal media. Similar things are happening in other states as well, including Kentucky under a Democratic governor that are affecting my employing university (University of Kentucky, a similar university to Madison in terms of mission and classification - i.e.: a large "very high" research university).

Another thing, I keep hearing about MN schools, especially universities, being so great in light of Walker's cuts, especially after that one UW professor went to UM. MNSCU schools, every one of them, is operating in the red. They also have decreasing enrollments. Things aren't so great in MN under their Democratic governor, either.

And decreased enrollment has more to do with population than anything else. It also has a lot to do with the economy. Education is a weird business, it does well when the economy is bad because people go to school to get skills, then the economy improves and people don't go to school in as high of numbers. The economy still isn't good, but it is better than at any time since 2008 and that is being reflected in college enrollments.

People don't make babies anymore because they are damn expensive. Thank you fiat currency and socialist welfare programs and monetary policy that are keeping wages stagnant or even declining after inflation.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 11837
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby BF004 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:54 pm

yoop wrote:UW is already feeling the pinch from Walker


If UW is feeling a pinch, it is because that is what the voters of Wisconsin wanted, 3 times in 4 years, not because of 1 person.
Image
Image
User avatar
BF004
 
Posts: 9987
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:38 pm
Location: Galesville, WI

Re: Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax

Postby Waldo » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:43 pm

wallyuwl wrote:People don't make babies anymore because they are damn expensive. Thank you fiat currency and socialist welfare programs and monetary policy that are keeping wages stagnant or even declining after inflation.


It can't be reduced to that at all. No matter where you go in the industrialized world, the problem persists. Like I said, the US is actually one of the least hard hit by the problem.

Its not culturally acceptable to make babies before you are set in your career, at it takes up to your mid 20's to get set in your career (and then another few to get a firm financial footing). THAT is the problem. By the time people get around to mating, their fertility prime is past. Even though we are extending our physical prime and longevity greatly, unfortunately the babymaking parts stop working well in the early-mid 30's for most, something that young people don't care about or aren't made aware of until they try to make babies and it doesn't work. Sure medical science has greatly solved this problem, but it is so expensive that it is purely for the upper middle class and above.

Our culture though has to solve this, because the problem is worsening. A shrinking population is horrendous for the economy (see Japan). Places in Europe have already begun "please screw more" campaigns.

What would go a long way to solving it is a retreat away from feminist ideas, at least for the whole population (not limit how much women can achieve, however retreating from the notion that all women need to achieve, instead a large % of girls growing up wanting to be stay at home moms) and the major socioeconomic shift that would be necessitated (housing and transit would have to get dramatically cheaper to support this, things that are doable). The housing issue would be the easiest to solve, and it is trending that way already; the two earner family is by and large a way to live in more square footage and have more stuff, which our culture has preferred along with all the drawbacks it brings (again, something that appears to be changing). And housing is the sector least altered by modern manufacturing, it is ripe for the taking for someone to dramatically undercut the status quo (I'll post about this in the 10 year thread).
Image
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4895
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest