Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

House Goes After Trout Stream Protections--Again

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 11, 2012

House Goes After Trout Stream Protections--Again

by Bob Marshall

Are they crazy or brilliant?

That's a question Trout Unlimited and a growing number of sportsmen are asking about the House leadership after it launched yet another attempt to block a proposed new wetlands guidance that could restore protection to millions of acres of wetlands, including headwaters of trout streams across the West.

The latest effort comes from the House Appropriations Committee, which voted along party lines for a measure that would prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from spending any money to implement the guidance, expected to be issued by the Obama Administration in the next few months.

Two House GOP budgets previously contained similar policy directives, neither of which made it through Congress. But the fact this try came so late in the game – and from a different vector – makes many conservationists nervous.

"This is the third year in a row that the House has tried to stop a new guidance from going forward, and we're a little concerned sportsmen might be tired of getting the call to action- they may think it's no longer important," said Steve Moyer, TU's vice president for government affairs.

"And this came very late in the process. Previously they used policy riders on budgets, so we had time to fight it. This time it was added by the appropriators. So now we're trying to rally sportsmen - again - and we don't have much time."

The author of this attempt is Dennis Rehberg (R- Montana), who has been a steadfast opponent of restoring Clean Water Act protection to 20 million acres of wetlands removed by Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. Those acres are mostly the small, seasonal and isolated wetlands essential to waterfowl breeding populations, and thousands of acres of trout stream headwaters.

Attempts to restore all those protections with the Clean Water Restoration Act were repeatedly blocked by congressmen supportive of development interests. Conservationists cheered when the Obama Administration attempted to limit the damage by issuing a new definition of which wetlands could be protected under the court rulings – a "guidance" for federal agencies like the corps and the EPA to follow. While the new guidance would leave millions of temporary wetlands vulnerable, it would bring headwaters back under the Clean Water Act umbrella.

The Obama Administration has been dragging its heels in getting the final version of that guidance officially published, but the GOP majority has made it clear it isn't going to wait for the results.

"What they have been trying to do is tell the corps and the EPA that they can't spend any money on implementing the guidance," Moyer said. "This isn't a vote on the law (CWA), it's a way to effect policy. By using the budget process they can prevent the agencies responsible for protecting wetlands from doing their jobs."

The risk to trout and plenty of other wildlife is enormous.

"The headwaters are the roots of a healthy watershed," Moyer explained. "And you need healthy watersheds to have healthy trout populations.

"So we're asking sportsmen - again - to contact their congressional delegations and tell them not to support this attempt. I know we've already done this before, but it's important."

You can find out how to contact your congressional rep at www.contactingthecongress.org.

Comments (57)

Top Rated
All Comments
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Look, at some point in time, the US and Obabble are going to HAVE to quit spending money willie-nillie or we (America) is going to end up passing austerity measures like Greece, France and England!
Yeah, I'd like to see all wetlands and waterfowl breeding grounds protected! But at what costs!? Whether you believe it or not, those ARE tax dollars.
How much comes from the Pittman/Robertson bill? I don't know, but I do know that's the sort of thing those dollars are earmarked to do.

Bubba

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Bubba,
You are gonna have to make it real simple for me. How do wetland restrictions equate to "spending money willie nillie?"

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Bob
I am aware that the Pittman Robertson act monies are earmarked to be spent on hunting and fishing needs for American sportsmen.
Monies spent above the Pittman Robertson act comes out of everyone.else's pocket.,not just sportsmen.
My "willie nillie" is meant about Obabble and the fact he has not had a budget in 3.5 years and has indebted America to pay for HIS ACA and has incurred more debt than any other president.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

The Pittman Robertson Act, and what is described above, are two different things. One involves restoration (which costs money), and one involves preservation.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from dsendre wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Bubba, please stop watching Fox News for a second and get your facts straight before making your erroneous arguments. Do a Google search for "Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bob
Fine, whatever PR covers, rave on! What it doesn't cover is my point. The US is heading down a road with a dead end. If you can't pay bills, do you eat every meal at a restaurant?
desendre
Stop believing everything you hear On ABC, CBS and NBC. NOR everything you read on the web! Didn't your grampa teach you "...believe nuthin' you hear and only half of what'cha see..."

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bubba,
I think we agree on principle that the US's income/expenditures need to get more in line. What is proposed above though isn't exactly an example of spending-gone-wild. The bill is an attempt to protect what we already have, not a mandate to go out and spend and create more...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bob81
Am I correct in presuming you're the Bob that wrote the article?
....and "YES", income/outgo needs to be, for the lack of a better term, corrected!
My point is, there are bills out there that purchase "frills". Problem is, when and IF the time comes, everybody knows spending cuts MUST happen to correct the overall situation, nobody wants to give up their T-bone for bologna. I'm saying trim back some now before amputation is the only answer.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bubbs,
Nope, not the same Bob.

I guess we are just gonna have to agree to disagree. This isn't a spending bill and I don't understand how protecting existing wetlands puts us further in the hole.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My problem isn't about protecting wetlands, it's more about where the dollars come from.
You mentioned "Appropriation", meaning, somebody decides where the money comes from and who the money goes to, correct?
Who decided a "Wetlands Protection" project should be funded when the Gov't has more pressing obligations? Like our debt to China?
Would you go on a Hawaiian vacation if you can't make your house payment? I bet not! The responsible thing to do is make the house payment then vacation where what's left will take you.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Cutting money from conservation programs is idiotic. The correct way to balance the budget is to target those sections of the budget with the biggest and most wasteful expenditures, especially those that harm the US economy. There are three primary offenders.

1. Defense spending. We spend nearly $700Bn per year, mostly on defending OTHER nations and "stability and security operations." Every time the Saudis fund another terrorist cell, keep in mind that YOUR taxpayer money was the source of their funds. Keep in mind that every time an American factory is closed and shipped overseas, it is because the US armed forces makes turdhole third world nations with autocratic rules, no labor laws, and no environmental laws, safe places to offshore US manufacturing jobs. Reduce defense spending to $200Bn per year and remission the US armed forces to the direct defense of US lands and waters, and maintenance of the strategic nuclear arsenal at 1500 warheads. Close all overseas US bases, end all overseas US deployments. I think the Europeans and Koreans can pay for their own dambed defense. Save the US taxpayer $450-500Bn per year.

2. Social Security Disability. Most of that money is spent supporting deadbeats. Eliminate it. Save $100Bn per year.

3. Medicare payments for life-sustaining treatment for people in the last ten weeks of their lives suffering from terminal illnesses. If we eliminated such treatment and replaced it with hospice/palliative care, we'd save about %250 Bn per year.

There you go. Budget balanced, debt paid off in 12 years.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

What is with all these people thinking that a commenter named Bob81 must be Bob Marshall? I agree with what Mr. Marshall writes most of the time. What does that make me? His nephew? Do you people know how common a name Bob is? Do you really think you're uncovering a Bob Marshall conspiracy to pose as a reader?

Trust me- journalists have better things to do than comment on their own articles under an anonymous name and take part in some petty charade. Plus, don't you think that if Bob created an account with the sole purpose of commenting on his own articles that he'd be smart enough to use a different name?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

First Mike D, cutting funding saves money. Period. Saving money is lots of things! Idiotic ain't one of 'em! LOL!
Your proposed military ideas are pretty good AND make lots of sense, to a point! Woodrow Wilson tried what you recommended. It's called "isolationism"! It didn't work then, it won't work now.
One of the biggest factors pushing jobs overseas is the "sea" of uncertainty the current administration is causing with it's budgetless spending and economy wrecking ACA!
Medicaid fraud?! I agree! Hands down! But don't stop there! There are some other "entitlement" programs that need to follow the dodo bird into oblivion! But hey, that's a whole 'nother blog.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My apologies, Mike.
SocSec Fraud, not Medicare!
I'll step on a few toes here, but I think SocSec needs to be scrapped entirely. Before you get bent out of shape, it's not gonna happen. It's so entangled in American society, it'll be here a long time. A blister upon the buttocks of the American economy! JMHO!
Your Medicaid thing might work Mike! How good is your crystal ball? Mine is "no bueno por nada!
RGM
I think Bob81 writes VERY well. Being asked if he was "Bob Marshall", I think, is rather a compliment to him, not a "dis" to THE Bob Marshall.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

See? That's the problem with guys like you. It's all about cutting spending except when you start talking about REALLY CUTTING SPENDING.

By the way, isolationism worked very well. I could make a longer argument but here's the short form.

1. WW2 started because of the conditions imposed by the treaty of versailles, and because in the 1930s, France and the UK did not stand up to Germany.

2. France and the UK ignored the USA when the treaty of Versailles was passed. They ignored Churchill when he warned of Nazism in the 1930s. France ALWAYS resents US involvement in world affairs, and they resent it even more when the US is involved in EUROPEAN affairs.

Only a crack smoking dope-head would imagine that France would have suffered US political involvement in the 1930s when Nazism was taking root. Had the US shown itself to be effective diplomatically, you can be CERTAIN that France would have tried to undermine the US. That is certainly the way that France has behaved since 1948. You might well have a WW2 in which France and Germany were allies. If the US had sent troops to France in 1939-1940, the French would ONLY have allowed them to serve under French command. That means that those Americans would have been all captured in June 1940. After that, you'd NEVER get the US public to go along with a war in Europe.

Bottom line. Isolationism has ALWAYS been VERY VERY GOOD for America. It's good for America because we spend less, it's good for America because we don't get caught up in other nations' wars, and it's good for Americans because we don't wind up subsidizing other nations' economies.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"but I think SocSec needs to be scrapped entirely"

Only if the people who put money into it get paid back with interest when the program is closed. I'd rather spend money on Social Security than spend it defending the frigging Europeans, Japs, Koreans, or Middle Eastern states.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Okay, then we're at a standstill on isolationism. No use beating a dead horse.
SocSec?
Since the money paid into SocSec is no longer there, there isn't going to be any "bulk" payments! It's my belief that SocSec exists on paper only, living hand to mouth, month by month! But that's just my opinion.
Here's my uneducated (LOL!) solution, Mike.
Say year 2015, inform all high school grads, "No more SocSec! ". Age 25 to about 50 has the choice, "Stay with SocSec or drop out and provide for your own retirement.".If they opt out? Payoff or pay pro rated SocSec at age 65.
Fifty and over? Stay right where they are.
Like I say, just my thoughts and yes, it would take many years to disband.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Depends on what you mean by "the money isn't there." Social Security has an asset list that has about $3Trillion in it. The assets are in the form of Government Issued Social Security Trust Fund Bonds. That is a legal debt owed to the issuer of the bonds. They're basically similar to US Treasury bills.

Now, if you claim that "the money is not there" then basically you are stating a willingness to default on US debt. My reply to that is to ask whether your intent is to also default on all the REST of the US debt? If not, then why not?

Why should the Federal Government NOT honor it's debt to the Social Security Trust Fund bonds, but honor its debt to all of the other bonds? Why should the Federal Government honor its debts to FOREIGN INVESTORS in US T-bills before it honors its debt to US citizens who worked for a living?

I can't imagine any idea more stupid than proposing to honor our debts to Chinese communist banks, Saudi Sovereign Wealth Funds, and the like, but not honor our debts to American workers. I think that is a profoundly trasonous idea.

If we're gonna default, let's default on ALL of the debt. Let's not sugarcoat this just to save the assets of rich people.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Where did "rich people" come in, Mike?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Are you claiming that Chinese oligarchs and Saudi bankers aren't very very very very wealthy?

Or are you suggesting that people who depend on Social Security to augment their retirements are all very wealthy and do not need it?

If not, why are you proposing to attack people who don't have much money but paid alot of taxes into a fund that is supposed to be there for them and doing all of that for the benefit of wealthy sheikhs and commies?

I think you have a crazy set of priorities if you want to default on SSTF bonds but not on the rest of the US debt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Back up a step there, amigo! If you'll go back and look, I said that's what "I" feel like is going on! As far as defaulting on SocSec! NOT COOL! I just think SocSec is flawed and is now a Gov't run Ponzi scheme.
Once more, this is what I suspect! HEY! I hope I am wrong!
As far as debt goes? If you signed for it, you gotta pay for it!! Makes no difference if it', Uncle Stu or your worst enemy! You borrow, you pay!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

P.S. - How you gonna borrow money from poor people Mike?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bberg7794 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Social security was implemented because people were tired of seeing the elderly starving in the streets in the years prior to and during the depression. The system is flawed, but what system isn't. I would like to make individuals completely responsible for their own retirement income, but I truly believe it would be a monumental disaster. Most have difficulty managing their money on a weekly basis-asking them to look thirty years ahead and be responsible for a decision made today would be impossible for many.

I personally completed over 200 individual income tax returns per year these last two years. I should have kept track of how many people cashed-in 401k's each year but I did not. My estimate is that it is near 30% of my clients, most cashing in the full value. I find this horrifying, but when I ask them each and every one said they needed the money right then (many for medical emergencies), even though each one knew they would pay tax and a penalty on the withdrawal and also not have the money for the future. This would be what would happen to private social security money too and we would be forced to bring back the "poor house" for the destitute who have nothing left and no relatives to rely on.

It would be nice if our education system was able to teach people about money and responsible decision making, or if we as a people were able to instill values regarding the importance of these things, but I am afraid it is not and we are not. Most are more worried about another flat screen for the third bedroom or their next car payment-retirement is impossible to consider and most of my clients say they will never be able to retire.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

bberg7794
At some point in time, you're going to have to take the training wheels off. But we've veered WAY off course.
This should be about Congress, USDA and tax dollars and how they're spent.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"P.S. - How you gonna borrow money from poor people Mike?"

The United States does that all the time. It's done in the form of Social Security Trust Fund bonds, into which poor people pay a much larger share of their income than wealthy people. The cash has been used to finance programs that disproportionately protect wealthy people, largely in the form of "Global Stabilization Efforts" to make Southeast Asia a safe place to offshore jobs that used to be located in the USA. It really would not be very safe to put all of those production assets in Malysia and Singapore and Korea without US stabfor, because those are autocratic states in some cases, and in other cases have batwing crazy neighbors like North Korea, or large local military expansionist powers like China.

Tax the middle class and poor to subsidize the wealthy is how the US has been run for decades.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

@bberg -- Good post. Funny thing is, we spent massive amounts of Federal money running up the debt to defend Wal Mart's and Target's and Apple's offshored production assets, fought a completely elective war so that the former pres friends could make lots of money off of lucrative Halliburton service contracts (only to have Halliburton offshore their corporation to Bahrain to avoid paying US taxes) and then we cut taxes on the very people who were benefitting from all of this Socialist Welfare For The Rich And Powerful.

Somehow after all of that the solution that the wingnuts always come up with is to dispose of people who are the ones who do all the work in this nation, fight the wars and, make the USA a great place.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Do I detect a note of envy and jealousy over the "wealthy"? Envy is only one of the "7 Deadly Sins"! Jealousy promotes anger which is another of the "Deadly Sins" You are aware that we all have the same opportunities, some folks just make better decisions! I wish I'd made some of those better decisions! LOL!!!
Anybody out there ever been hired by a poor man or had an unsuccessful company write them a paycheck? Didn't think so.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bberg7794 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

FirstBubba-You are correct in that the discussion on this post has veered way off course; "congress, USDA, and tax dollars" and trout stream protection. Hopefully trout and other wildlife will not suffer due to wealthy interests, who purchase our elected officials, refusing to share a pittance of their success in the form of habitat protection.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"Do I detect a note of envy and jealousy over the "wealthy"?"

No. You detect a middle class taxpayer who is irritated by paying taxes that largely go to support the wealthy. I don't have a problem with people being wealthy. I just think they need to stop taxing me to cover their risks.

"Envy is only one of the "7 Deadly Sins"! Jealousy promotes anger which is another of the "Deadly Sins""

I wouldn't know. I have about as much regard for all that biblical baloney as I do for your average toothpaste commercial.

"You are aware that we all have the same opportunities"

You are incorrect.

"some folks just make better decisions"

And some are simply talented thieves.

"Anybody out there ever been hired by a poor man or had an unsuccessful company write them a paycheck? Didn't think so."

Any successful company ever been a success without hard working people on the productino side to make it so? Didn't think so.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My, my Mr. Diehl; such an attitude!
First off, the last thing "wealthy" people need OR want is your support! .Unless they're running for public office, they neither need nor want your money or support!
Most of them are only interested in developing their business and staying profitable.
You won't find the "7 Deadly Sins" in the Bible, Mike. Seek them elsewhere.
1 pride
2 envy
3 gluttony
4 lust
5 anger
6 greed
7 sloth
The last time you and I chatted, you were upset because you couldn't chase "public" deer onto my "private" property. How's that working out for you?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"My, my Mr. Diehl; such an attitude!"

Yep. The attitude that makes a man free.

"First off, the last thing "wealthy" people need OR want is your support!"

I only wish that were true. Regrettably, the facts are overwhelmingly against your claim. All I need to do is point out the taxpayer provided bailouts for GM and Chrysler, Sachs, Wall Street Banks, Halliburton, and subsidies for petroleum extraction, and the evidence conculsively shows that my tax money (and the debt that Uncle Sugar runs up in my name) is largely for the purpose of protecting the wealth of the very very wealthy. Anyone with a shred of honesty would admit I'm correct.

I'll offer you a deal. If they really don't demand my support, let's change the tax code to voluntary tax payments. I pay exactly how much money in Federal taxes I *want* to pay based on my own assessment of the Gov't spending priorities and value for service.

"You won't find the "7 Deadly Sins" in the Bible, Mike. Seek them elsewhere."

Why would I seek them at all. I truly don't give a rat's hind end about who came up with them or what they want out of me in talking about them. Show me seven deadly sins and I'll show you a propaganda sheet from someone who either wants to control my money or my political support.

"The last time you and I chatted, you were upset because you couldn't chase "public" deer onto my "private" property. How's that working out for you?"

Working out fine as far as I am concerned. Here's me not giving a rat's hind end about whether or not anyone enters your land. How's that working out for you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

You're a sad, sad person, Mr. Diehl.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bubba- instead of responding with "Your angry" and "Your sad," how about offering a counterpoint for once?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

RGM
Go back and read the previous 33 posts on this thread.
"I" didn't bring up SocSec, nor Medicaid! I didn't make insinuations as to somebody else's IQ! I surely am not the "angry" one.
I'm still trying to figure out how Woodrow Wilson's "Isolationist"policy had to do with WWII France?
So, I ask you! Who DO you think needs to "chill"?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

BTW
As long as the First Amendment is valid and F&S doesn't pull my "login", I'll post as I wish within F&S guidelines, thank you very much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from poetwild wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

You are an awesome debater FirstBubba. One of your adversaries generally opts to characterize those who see these matters as you do as "idiotic", "stupid"...et cetera.Well, I find your positions quite logical and well stated.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

i'd rather have my tax dollers spent to protect trout habitat than many other programs. as a matter of fact i wouldn't mind paying a little more taxes to support it (oh the shock and horror!!!!)

i'm a pretty simpele person. i like fishing, hunting, camping, and hanging out and training my bird dog. i would be a very unhappy person if we start losing trout streams and other wild places so that people can spend money on fancy jewelry, i-things, and going out to eat at fancy restauraunts.

bubba lists the 7 deadly sins and greed is one of them. there are a lot of people in this country that are extremely greedy. they want their money, they want it now, and they could care less about what it may cost others below them

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

wisc14
Yes, I "think" there are some "entitlement" programs that could be done away with, but the first and "biggest" problem, is people acting responsibly! So many people have lived off Gov't handouts for so long, they're basically "hooked"! Just like a user! I have worked with people who laughingly showed me 5 and 6 drivers license, each with a different SS#!! Not only did they collect a paycheck, but drove around town each month picking up welfare checks! When asked why, the reply was always. ""Because I can!" "Why not?"
My argument isn't necessarily to "kill" all Gov't programs, but to bring to mind that the deeper in debt the US gets, the harder it is to get OUT of debt!
Does it not make sense to trim back SOME of spending now?
When or "IF" the US is faced with "austerity" cuts like Greece, France and the UK, those programs will likely be the first to go! Note, I did say, "IF"!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

poetwild
Debate is pointless if your opponent refuses to accept there may be some validity to your premise! AND, vice versa!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

BTW, Mr. Deihl
Should Obabble and Geithner keep printing money, those SSTF and Tbills won't even make good toilet paper. Do we pay our seniors with thousand dollar bills?

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"You're a sad, sad person, Mr. Diehl."

Actually, I am quite happy, cheerful, successful, and well respected in my area of expertise. I just don't share your agenda. I'm also a pagan, and mostly view others' sense of morality as typically hypocritical. Yours in particular. About those sins: you may want to check your greed quotient, you seem to be running a little feverish in that area.

As to the Federal Reserve, you have hit upon an issue where you and I agree. But easy money was not new to the Obama admin. It started under the previous president.

I do notice, that despite your pronouncements, you managed to not adress any of the actual issues here. Since SSTF bonds are US debt obligations, is it still your position that the US should NOT honor those obligations, but should honor its debt obligations to others?

I wonder why it is that every time reactionaries propose spending reductions, they refuse to hit the biggest and most inefficient parts of the US budget? Why is it always social welfare programs that must be eliminated, rather than corporate welfare programs?

What America needs is REAL conservatives. Not the phonies represented by the current GOP. Real conservatives keep the gov't out of citizens' private lives, don't spend money to subsidize corporations or other nations, and DO try to live within their fiscal means. Until the DoD bugdget and Medicare are very heavily slashed, we won't have any sort of conservative fiscal program in place in the USA.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Greed?
'Fraid not amigo!
Tightwad?
YES! LOL!!!
Were I a better "tightwad", I'd have more money today!!

The US needs a strong defense. We need to keep our military armed, trained and mobile. If I had been in charge, I would have done it differently! But that's being an armchair quarterback!
I qualify for Medicaid. Cut it!
Kill the ACA, let insurance companies compete across state lines, stomp out frivolous lawsuits and I van buy my own insurance!
There's lots of programs that need to be "ancient" history!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Cutting our bloated Pentagon/military spending would save us hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Spending as much as possible doesn't necessarily make us safer.

If we used some of those savings toward improving our levees, roads, bridges, infrastructure- that would do more in the way of making us safer and helping to protect this country's future.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

RGM
I'll even agree to your military thoughts. It not how MUCH you spend, but HOW it's spent!
Roads and infrastructure? Sure!
There is a balance that's way out of whack! The sooner that balance is regained the sooner there will be more to spend on trout streams, etc, etc, etc.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

I don't even know why we're wasting money on outdated Cold-War era weapons programs either. Dr Lawrence Korb (Former Assist Secretary of Defense) from the Reagan administration put out a report on these weapon systems and why they're no longer necessary. Anyway- this spending amounts to 60 billion a year.

We're talking about trimming down military spending by a TINY sliver.

If cutting this spending by a tiny percentage makes you feel vulnerable- you're clueless. But hey, atleast we're making Lockheed Martin and all the other contractors happy by throwing our money at them.

Just to back up with Diehl is saying- So corporate welfare and this excessive spending is of no concern to you, Bubba? But conservation programs and cutting some social programs is what gets you worked up? Those are pennies in comparison to the real waste... But this was never about honest cuts in spending. It's about promoting a political agenda.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

You're cherry picking RGM!
Cold War era weapons systems no longer necessary? I don't get a sitrep or intel update each day. Hard to say what is or isn't necessary. I have "NO" problem cutting "unnecessary" programs!
I'm not even stating "cut" priorities!
What I've continued to advocate that you and Deihl seem to miss is; we can no longer "cherry pick" programs to cut, trim or fund! The time has come to cut ALL programs and not leave "pet" programs untouched!
you can't cut "just" military or "just" social programs or "just" USDA!
...AND, if those "Cold War" era systems are outdated? Scrap 'em! BUT! If they're still viable, don't scrap them solely to renovate trout streams!
Clueless? You think I may be clueless? I don't think I've made any personal statements towards you. I think you're being a little judgemental!
My ENTIRE premise IS excessive spendng! Corporate welfare, military or otherwise

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

BTW RGM,
Your Dr. L. J. Korb?
He's a member of the "Center for American Progress".
It's a "liberal" think tank! My apologies, but I'm always a bit skeptical of "liberalism"!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

The United States was founded by liberals. The end of the Dark Ages and the Renaissence were brought about by liberals. Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were liberals. I mean that in the liberal/progressive sense, not in the "Democratic Party" or "Green Party" sense.

"Liberalism" is a name that reactionaries give to ideas that they don't understand.

The US does not need infinite defense. The US needs defense sufficient to accomplish missions that are constitutionally appropriate. IMO, the only constitutionally appropriate missions for the US DoD involve ONLY the direct defense of US lands and waters. Defending Europe or SE Asia from aggression is not a constitutionally appropriate mission. And doing that, we wind up taxing Americans directly in order to subsidize the economies of other nations.

That is why our own economy is in the tank. We not only increase our debts and taxes to defend those nations, but in so doing we allow them to decrease their debts and taxes -- which makes them good places to offshore American production jobs.

So, IMO, all we really need is 6 CVNs with their support ships, 20 or so attack submarines, a dozen or so boomers, our ICBM force, and the US Coast Guard.

If Iran wants to invade Saud, or bomb Israel, LET 'EM. It's not my problem, and its constitutionally improper to involve the US in such affairs absent an actual Declaration of War by the US Senate.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"you can't cut "just" military or "just" social programs or "just" USDA!"

Yeah, actually, you can. All you need to do is reduce the DoD budget to $250 Bn per year and you accomplish the mission I have described. Direct defense of US lands and waters is secured, strategic deterrance is maintained. ELiminate Social Security Disability, and eliminate Medicare non-palliative/hospice treatment for people with end-stage cancer, alzheimers, COPD or organ failure.

Do those three things and you will cut $1Trillion per year from the budget, increase the number of middle class production jobs (which will increase tax revenue) and generate a budget surplus that can be used to eliminate the national debt, without defaulting on any kind of Federally issued debt bond.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Mr. Deihl
Other than the history of their era, I could care less about Abe and Teddy! They're long gone!
So, you idea is to reduce military spending to $250 billion annuals. Cut SocSec disability, and eliminate Medicaid?
Very nice!
Now, what about USDA programs that actually, and quite literally, pay farmers to do "nothing"? Or is that a "pet" program you want to protect? Or is it just cherry picking programs that just "chap your chili"?
You see, the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to look at any and all Gov't programs and make decisions based on their merit. You just want to hatchet three and complain about the rest.
BTW, who decides who gets "end of life" care and who doesn't? What happens when a recipient lives beyond their expected life span? Pull the plug? Morphine overdose? Air in the vein?
And while we're at it, do you know, or even "care" about the importance of the US alliance with Israel?

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My guy? He was Ronald Reagan's guy. I don't get it... What's your point? Anything you deem "liberal" must be wrong? Anything considered "liberal" must be met with opposition from you? Bubba, are you a political hack?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Liberal. Left. Democrat.
Conservative. Right. Republican.
I'm more along the Tea Party side of things. That said, I'm not so hardline that I don't realize there are good Democrats and bad Republicans.
I do agree with M Deihl on some points, and you too for the record. Like MD, I'd like to see SocSec disability bite the dust. But unlike Mike, I wouldn't stop there. Once more, that's just me.
I'd like to see military with an annual budget but with additional funds available!
I wouldn't close down ALL foreign bases either.
Corporate welfare should be out the door. Obabble succeeded in using taxpayer dollars to purchase GM and hand it over to the UAW. GM likes to brag it paid back it's bailout loan, and indeed they did, with a TARP loan! THAT is coporate welfare!
I don't want to cut just the programs that perturb me, I want to kill the useless ones, redo the abused ones and streamline the remainder.
I'm tired of the cronyism and pork barrel spending!
I'm NOT going to cherry pick select programs. Put ALL the cards on the table. The funds Pittman-Robertson funds to be spent only for the intended purpose.
I'm no political "hack", I just have my own ideas.
Remember, opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one and they all stink!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"Now, what about USDA programs that actually, and quite literally, pay farmers to do "nothing"?"

Depends on what the reason is. Conservation programs that keep our ecologies working aren't a bad thing. Certainly we get more value for the dollar from those than we do from any dollar spent in Bahrain.

"You see, the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to look at any and all Gov't programs"

Incorrect. YOu have already stated that there are programs you would not cut. The other difference between you and me is that you want to spend American money in ways that don't benefit many Americans at all. I'm not at all keen about subsidizing Chinese or Canadian or Mexican mineral extraction in the USA, or making Korea safe from North Korea or whatever. All these foreign nations you want to steal my money to protect -- they're populated by people who can damb well pay their OWN taxes to protect themselves rather than sponging off of me.

"You just want to hatchet three and complain about the rest."

Not hatchet. The reason for the cuts makes sense. Not arbitrary at all. And those three are the ones with most of the money. Certainly it makes no sense to cut funding to the EPA or the NSF or the DoJ.

"BTW, who decides who gets "end of life" care and who doesn't?"

Right now, your insurance company decides. Or did you imagine that YOU have a choice in the matter? Unless you're paying out of pocket, some bean counter in an insurance company will make that call for you.

"And while we're at it, do you know, or even "care" about the importance of the US alliance with Israel?"

The United States has no alliance with Israel. Israel is a parasite nation that has killed more Americans than Iraq and Iran combined. Or had you never heard of the USS Liberty? Israeli spies have stolen, variously, US naval intel secrets, US submarine secrets, and US missile secrets, and sold them respectively to the USSR, the People's Republic of China, and Pakistan.

Israel could be overrun tomorrow and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the national security of the United States.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 47 weeks ago

It's quite obvious that you neither know nor care why Israel is important to the U.S..
Uninformed people like you are dangerous.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 47 weeks ago

I am both better informed, as to matters of national security, and also more rational, and a better American, than are you. Since your first loyalty is to some other nation, why not put your life, treasure, and sacred honor on the line and GO THERE?

Won't stand by your convictions then? Thought so.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Latnorth wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Hey 1st Bubba,

Did you ever ask yourself why all your comments on this thread are in the red MINUS column? Could it just be that you are WRONG and Mike's correct? He's schooling you and you don't know when to STFU when you're getting taught a lesson! I read the entire thread and you haven't had a good counter-point yet! Put a fork in THE BUBBA he's done.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from PeaceLoveHarmony wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another right now. Right now!

Seeing how you've chosen FIELD & STREAM as your soapbox, don't you think you've taken the topic pretty far aFIELD from protecting STREAMs? If every time we try to address a problem--such as loss of headwater wetlands--we first need to make sure that all else in the world is just peachy (as we perceive peachy to be), then I dare say we'd never accomplish much of anything except maybe sitting around and beating each other over the head with our ideologies. (Gosh! Sounds like Congress!)

I for one will follow Bob Marshall's advice and ask my delegation not to interfere with our president's authority to issue policy directives to federal agencies. And I think I'll find something more productive to do today than hang out here and read other people's rants.

Peace, love, and harmony, y'all...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Bob81 wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Bubba,
You are gonna have to make it real simple for me. How do wetland restrictions equate to "spending money willie nillie?"

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

The Pittman Robertson Act, and what is described above, are two different things. One involves restoration (which costs money), and one involves preservation.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Latnorth wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Hey 1st Bubba,

Did you ever ask yourself why all your comments on this thread are in the red MINUS column? Could it just be that you are WRONG and Mike's correct? He's schooling you and you don't know when to STFU when you're getting taught a lesson! I read the entire thread and you haven't had a good counter-point yet! Put a fork in THE BUBBA he's done.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from bberg7794 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Social security was implemented because people were tired of seeing the elderly starving in the streets in the years prior to and during the depression. The system is flawed, but what system isn't. I would like to make individuals completely responsible for their own retirement income, but I truly believe it would be a monumental disaster. Most have difficulty managing their money on a weekly basis-asking them to look thirty years ahead and be responsible for a decision made today would be impossible for many.

I personally completed over 200 individual income tax returns per year these last two years. I should have kept track of how many people cashed-in 401k's each year but I did not. My estimate is that it is near 30% of my clients, most cashing in the full value. I find this horrifying, but when I ask them each and every one said they needed the money right then (many for medical emergencies), even though each one knew they would pay tax and a penalty on the withdrawal and also not have the money for the future. This would be what would happen to private social security money too and we would be forced to bring back the "poor house" for the destitute who have nothing left and no relatives to rely on.

It would be nice if our education system was able to teach people about money and responsible decision making, or if we as a people were able to instill values regarding the importance of these things, but I am afraid it is not and we are not. Most are more worried about another flat screen for the third bedroom or their next car payment-retirement is impossible to consider and most of my clients say they will never be able to retire.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

@bberg -- Good post. Funny thing is, we spent massive amounts of Federal money running up the debt to defend Wal Mart's and Target's and Apple's offshored production assets, fought a completely elective war so that the former pres friends could make lots of money off of lucrative Halliburton service contracts (only to have Halliburton offshore their corporation to Bahrain to avoid paying US taxes) and then we cut taxes on the very people who were benefitting from all of this Socialist Welfare For The Rich And Powerful.

Somehow after all of that the solution that the wingnuts always come up with is to dispose of people who are the ones who do all the work in this nation, fight the wars and, make the USA a great place.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"You're a sad, sad person, Mr. Diehl."

Actually, I am quite happy, cheerful, successful, and well respected in my area of expertise. I just don't share your agenda. I'm also a pagan, and mostly view others' sense of morality as typically hypocritical. Yours in particular. About those sins: you may want to check your greed quotient, you seem to be running a little feverish in that area.

As to the Federal Reserve, you have hit upon an issue where you and I agree. But easy money was not new to the Obama admin. It started under the previous president.

I do notice, that despite your pronouncements, you managed to not adress any of the actual issues here. Since SSTF bonds are US debt obligations, is it still your position that the US should NOT honor those obligations, but should honor its debt obligations to others?

I wonder why it is that every time reactionaries propose spending reductions, they refuse to hit the biggest and most inefficient parts of the US budget? Why is it always social welfare programs that must be eliminated, rather than corporate welfare programs?

What America needs is REAL conservatives. Not the phonies represented by the current GOP. Real conservatives keep the gov't out of citizens' private lives, don't spend money to subsidize corporations or other nations, and DO try to live within their fiscal means. Until the DoD bugdget and Medicare are very heavily slashed, we won't have any sort of conservative fiscal program in place in the USA.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

The United States was founded by liberals. The end of the Dark Ages and the Renaissence were brought about by liberals. Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were liberals. I mean that in the liberal/progressive sense, not in the "Democratic Party" or "Green Party" sense.

"Liberalism" is a name that reactionaries give to ideas that they don't understand.

The US does not need infinite defense. The US needs defense sufficient to accomplish missions that are constitutionally appropriate. IMO, the only constitutionally appropriate missions for the US DoD involve ONLY the direct defense of US lands and waters. Defending Europe or SE Asia from aggression is not a constitutionally appropriate mission. And doing that, we wind up taxing Americans directly in order to subsidize the economies of other nations.

That is why our own economy is in the tank. We not only increase our debts and taxes to defend those nations, but in so doing we allow them to decrease their debts and taxes -- which makes them good places to offshore American production jobs.

So, IMO, all we really need is 6 CVNs with their support ships, 20 or so attack submarines, a dozen or so boomers, our ICBM force, and the US Coast Guard.

If Iran wants to invade Saud, or bomb Israel, LET 'EM. It's not my problem, and its constitutionally improper to involve the US in such affairs absent an actual Declaration of War by the US Senate.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bubba,
I think we agree on principle that the US's income/expenditures need to get more in line. What is proposed above though isn't exactly an example of spending-gone-wild. The bill is an attempt to protect what we already have, not a mandate to go out and spend and create more...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from bberg7794 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

FirstBubba-You are correct in that the discussion on this post has veered way off course; "congress, USDA, and tax dollars" and trout stream protection. Hopefully trout and other wildlife will not suffer due to wealthy interests, who purchase our elected officials, refusing to share a pittance of their success in the form of habitat protection.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

i'd rather have my tax dollers spent to protect trout habitat than many other programs. as a matter of fact i wouldn't mind paying a little more taxes to support it (oh the shock and horror!!!!)

i'm a pretty simpele person. i like fishing, hunting, camping, and hanging out and training my bird dog. i would be a very unhappy person if we start losing trout streams and other wild places so that people can spend money on fancy jewelry, i-things, and going out to eat at fancy restauraunts.

bubba lists the 7 deadly sins and greed is one of them. there are a lot of people in this country that are extremely greedy. they want their money, they want it now, and they could care less about what it may cost others below them

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My guy? He was Ronald Reagan's guy. I don't get it... What's your point? Anything you deem "liberal" must be wrong? Anything considered "liberal" must be met with opposition from you? Bubba, are you a political hack?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

See? That's the problem with guys like you. It's all about cutting spending except when you start talking about REALLY CUTTING SPENDING.

By the way, isolationism worked very well. I could make a longer argument but here's the short form.

1. WW2 started because of the conditions imposed by the treaty of versailles, and because in the 1930s, France and the UK did not stand up to Germany.

2. France and the UK ignored the USA when the treaty of Versailles was passed. They ignored Churchill when he warned of Nazism in the 1930s. France ALWAYS resents US involvement in world affairs, and they resent it even more when the US is involved in EUROPEAN affairs.

Only a crack smoking dope-head would imagine that France would have suffered US political involvement in the 1930s when Nazism was taking root. Had the US shown itself to be effective diplomatically, you can be CERTAIN that France would have tried to undermine the US. That is certainly the way that France has behaved since 1948. You might well have a WW2 in which France and Germany were allies. If the US had sent troops to France in 1939-1940, the French would ONLY have allowed them to serve under French command. That means that those Americans would have been all captured in June 1940. After that, you'd NEVER get the US public to go along with a war in Europe.

Bottom line. Isolationism has ALWAYS been VERY VERY GOOD for America. It's good for America because we spend less, it's good for America because we don't get caught up in other nations' wars, and it's good for Americans because we don't wind up subsidizing other nations' economies.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"but I think SocSec needs to be scrapped entirely"

Only if the people who put money into it get paid back with interest when the program is closed. I'd rather spend money on Social Security than spend it defending the frigging Europeans, Japs, Koreans, or Middle Eastern states.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"you can't cut "just" military or "just" social programs or "just" USDA!"

Yeah, actually, you can. All you need to do is reduce the DoD budget to $250 Bn per year and you accomplish the mission I have described. Direct defense of US lands and waters is secured, strategic deterrance is maintained. ELiminate Social Security Disability, and eliminate Medicare non-palliative/hospice treatment for people with end-stage cancer, alzheimers, COPD or organ failure.

Do those three things and you will cut $1Trillion per year from the budget, increase the number of middle class production jobs (which will increase tax revenue) and generate a budget surplus that can be used to eliminate the national debt, without defaulting on any kind of Federally issued debt bond.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"Now, what about USDA programs that actually, and quite literally, pay farmers to do "nothing"?"

Depends on what the reason is. Conservation programs that keep our ecologies working aren't a bad thing. Certainly we get more value for the dollar from those than we do from any dollar spent in Bahrain.

"You see, the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to look at any and all Gov't programs"

Incorrect. YOu have already stated that there are programs you would not cut. The other difference between you and me is that you want to spend American money in ways that don't benefit many Americans at all. I'm not at all keen about subsidizing Chinese or Canadian or Mexican mineral extraction in the USA, or making Korea safe from North Korea or whatever. All these foreign nations you want to steal my money to protect -- they're populated by people who can damb well pay their OWN taxes to protect themselves rather than sponging off of me.

"You just want to hatchet three and complain about the rest."

Not hatchet. The reason for the cuts makes sense. Not arbitrary at all. And those three are the ones with most of the money. Certainly it makes no sense to cut funding to the EPA or the NSF or the DoJ.

"BTW, who decides who gets "end of life" care and who doesn't?"

Right now, your insurance company decides. Or did you imagine that YOU have a choice in the matter? Unless you're paying out of pocket, some bean counter in an insurance company will make that call for you.

"And while we're at it, do you know, or even "care" about the importance of the US alliance with Israel?"

The United States has no alliance with Israel. Israel is a parasite nation that has killed more Americans than Iraq and Iran combined. Or had you never heard of the USS Liberty? Israeli spies have stolen, variously, US naval intel secrets, US submarine secrets, and US missile secrets, and sold them respectively to the USSR, the People's Republic of China, and Pakistan.

Israel could be overrun tomorrow and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the national security of the United States.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bubbs,
Nope, not the same Bob.

I guess we are just gonna have to agree to disagree. This isn't a spending bill and I don't understand how protecting existing wetlands puts us further in the hole.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

What is with all these people thinking that a commenter named Bob81 must be Bob Marshall? I agree with what Mr. Marshall writes most of the time. What does that make me? His nephew? Do you people know how common a name Bob is? Do you really think you're uncovering a Bob Marshall conspiracy to pose as a reader?

Trust me- journalists have better things to do than comment on their own articles under an anonymous name and take part in some petty charade. Plus, don't you think that if Bob created an account with the sole purpose of commenting on his own articles that he'd be smart enough to use a different name?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bubba- instead of responding with "Your angry" and "Your sad," how about offering a counterpoint for once?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Cutting our bloated Pentagon/military spending would save us hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Spending as much as possible doesn't necessarily make us safer.

If we used some of those savings toward improving our levees, roads, bridges, infrastructure- that would do more in the way of making us safer and helping to protect this country's future.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

I don't even know why we're wasting money on outdated Cold-War era weapons programs either. Dr Lawrence Korb (Former Assist Secretary of Defense) from the Reagan administration put out a report on these weapon systems and why they're no longer necessary. Anyway- this spending amounts to 60 billion a year.

We're talking about trimming down military spending by a TINY sliver.

If cutting this spending by a tiny percentage makes you feel vulnerable- you're clueless. But hey, atleast we're making Lockheed Martin and all the other contractors happy by throwing our money at them.

Just to back up with Diehl is saying- So corporate welfare and this excessive spending is of no concern to you, Bubba? But conservation programs and cutting some social programs is what gets you worked up? Those are pennies in comparison to the real waste... But this was never about honest cuts in spending. It's about promoting a political agenda.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Cutting money from conservation programs is idiotic. The correct way to balance the budget is to target those sections of the budget with the biggest and most wasteful expenditures, especially those that harm the US economy. There are three primary offenders.

1. Defense spending. We spend nearly $700Bn per year, mostly on defending OTHER nations and "stability and security operations." Every time the Saudis fund another terrorist cell, keep in mind that YOUR taxpayer money was the source of their funds. Keep in mind that every time an American factory is closed and shipped overseas, it is because the US armed forces makes turdhole third world nations with autocratic rules, no labor laws, and no environmental laws, safe places to offshore US manufacturing jobs. Reduce defense spending to $200Bn per year and remission the US armed forces to the direct defense of US lands and waters, and maintenance of the strategic nuclear arsenal at 1500 warheads. Close all overseas US bases, end all overseas US deployments. I think the Europeans and Koreans can pay for their own dambed defense. Save the US taxpayer $450-500Bn per year.

2. Social Security Disability. Most of that money is spent supporting deadbeats. Eliminate it. Save $100Bn per year.

3. Medicare payments for life-sustaining treatment for people in the last ten weeks of their lives suffering from terminal illnesses. If we eliminated such treatment and replaced it with hospice/palliative care, we'd save about %250 Bn per year.

There you go. Budget balanced, debt paid off in 12 years.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Depends on what you mean by "the money isn't there." Social Security has an asset list that has about $3Trillion in it. The assets are in the form of Government Issued Social Security Trust Fund Bonds. That is a legal debt owed to the issuer of the bonds. They're basically similar to US Treasury bills.

Now, if you claim that "the money is not there" then basically you are stating a willingness to default on US debt. My reply to that is to ask whether your intent is to also default on all the REST of the US debt? If not, then why not?

Why should the Federal Government NOT honor it's debt to the Social Security Trust Fund bonds, but honor its debt to all of the other bonds? Why should the Federal Government honor its debts to FOREIGN INVESTORS in US T-bills before it honors its debt to US citizens who worked for a living?

I can't imagine any idea more stupid than proposing to honor our debts to Chinese communist banks, Saudi Sovereign Wealth Funds, and the like, but not honor our debts to American workers. I think that is a profoundly trasonous idea.

If we're gonna default, let's default on ALL of the debt. Let's not sugarcoat this just to save the assets of rich people.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Are you claiming that Chinese oligarchs and Saudi bankers aren't very very very very wealthy?

Or are you suggesting that people who depend on Social Security to augment their retirements are all very wealthy and do not need it?

If not, why are you proposing to attack people who don't have much money but paid alot of taxes into a fund that is supposed to be there for them and doing all of that for the benefit of wealthy sheikhs and commies?

I think you have a crazy set of priorities if you want to default on SSTF bonds but not on the rest of the US debt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"P.S. - How you gonna borrow money from poor people Mike?"

The United States does that all the time. It's done in the form of Social Security Trust Fund bonds, into which poor people pay a much larger share of their income than wealthy people. The cash has been used to finance programs that disproportionately protect wealthy people, largely in the form of "Global Stabilization Efforts" to make Southeast Asia a safe place to offshore jobs that used to be located in the USA. It really would not be very safe to put all of those production assets in Malysia and Singapore and Korea without US stabfor, because those are autocratic states in some cases, and in other cases have batwing crazy neighbors like North Korea, or large local military expansionist powers like China.

Tax the middle class and poor to subsidize the wealthy is how the US has been run for decades.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"Do I detect a note of envy and jealousy over the "wealthy"?"

No. You detect a middle class taxpayer who is irritated by paying taxes that largely go to support the wealthy. I don't have a problem with people being wealthy. I just think they need to stop taxing me to cover their risks.

"Envy is only one of the "7 Deadly Sins"! Jealousy promotes anger which is another of the "Deadly Sins""

I wouldn't know. I have about as much regard for all that biblical baloney as I do for your average toothpaste commercial.

"You are aware that we all have the same opportunities"

You are incorrect.

"some folks just make better decisions"

And some are simply talented thieves.

"Anybody out there ever been hired by a poor man or had an unsuccessful company write them a paycheck? Didn't think so."

Any successful company ever been a success without hard working people on the productino side to make it so? Didn't think so.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

"My, my Mr. Diehl; such an attitude!"

Yep. The attitude that makes a man free.

"First off, the last thing "wealthy" people need OR want is your support!"

I only wish that were true. Regrettably, the facts are overwhelmingly against your claim. All I need to do is point out the taxpayer provided bailouts for GM and Chrysler, Sachs, Wall Street Banks, Halliburton, and subsidies for petroleum extraction, and the evidence conculsively shows that my tax money (and the debt that Uncle Sugar runs up in my name) is largely for the purpose of protecting the wealth of the very very wealthy. Anyone with a shred of honesty would admit I'm correct.

I'll offer you a deal. If they really don't demand my support, let's change the tax code to voluntary tax payments. I pay exactly how much money in Federal taxes I *want* to pay based on my own assessment of the Gov't spending priorities and value for service.

"You won't find the "7 Deadly Sins" in the Bible, Mike. Seek them elsewhere."

Why would I seek them at all. I truly don't give a rat's hind end about who came up with them or what they want out of me in talking about them. Show me seven deadly sins and I'll show you a propaganda sheet from someone who either wants to control my money or my political support.

"The last time you and I chatted, you were upset because you couldn't chase "public" deer onto my "private" property. How's that working out for you?"

Working out fine as far as I am concerned. Here's me not giving a rat's hind end about whether or not anyone enters your land. How's that working out for you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Okay, then we're at a standstill on isolationism. No use beating a dead horse.
SocSec?
Since the money paid into SocSec is no longer there, there isn't going to be any "bulk" payments! It's my belief that SocSec exists on paper only, living hand to mouth, month by month! But that's just my opinion.
Here's my uneducated (LOL!) solution, Mike.
Say year 2015, inform all high school grads, "No more SocSec! ". Age 25 to about 50 has the choice, "Stay with SocSec or drop out and provide for your own retirement.".If they opt out? Payoff or pay pro rated SocSec at age 65.
Fifty and over? Stay right where they are.
Like I say, just my thoughts and yes, it would take many years to disband.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dsendre wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Bubba, please stop watching Fox News for a second and get your facts straight before making your erroneous arguments. Do a Google search for "Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PeaceLoveHarmony wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another right now. Right now!

Seeing how you've chosen FIELD & STREAM as your soapbox, don't you think you've taken the topic pretty far aFIELD from protecting STREAMs? If every time we try to address a problem--such as loss of headwater wetlands--we first need to make sure that all else in the world is just peachy (as we perceive peachy to be), then I dare say we'd never accomplish much of anything except maybe sitting around and beating each other over the head with our ideologies. (Gosh! Sounds like Congress!)

I for one will follow Bob Marshall's advice and ask my delegation not to interfere with our president's authority to issue policy directives to federal agencies. And I think I'll find something more productive to do today than hang out here and read other people's rants.

Peace, love, and harmony, y'all...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 47 weeks ago

I am both better informed, as to matters of national security, and also more rational, and a better American, than are you. Since your first loyalty is to some other nation, why not put your life, treasure, and sacred honor on the line and GO THERE?

Won't stand by your convictions then? Thought so.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Where did "rich people" come in, Mike?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

P.S. - How you gonna borrow money from poor people Mike?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

bberg7794
At some point in time, you're going to have to take the training wheels off. But we've veered WAY off course.
This should be about Congress, USDA and tax dollars and how they're spent.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My, my Mr. Diehl; such an attitude!
First off, the last thing "wealthy" people need OR want is your support! .Unless they're running for public office, they neither need nor want your money or support!
Most of them are only interested in developing their business and staying profitable.
You won't find the "7 Deadly Sins" in the Bible, Mike. Seek them elsewhere.
1 pride
2 envy
3 gluttony
4 lust
5 anger
6 greed
7 sloth
The last time you and I chatted, you were upset because you couldn't chase "public" deer onto my "private" property. How's that working out for you?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

BTW
As long as the First Amendment is valid and F&S doesn't pull my "login", I'll post as I wish within F&S guidelines, thank you very much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My problem isn't about protecting wetlands, it's more about where the dollars come from.
You mentioned "Appropriation", meaning, somebody decides where the money comes from and who the money goes to, correct?
Who decided a "Wetlands Protection" project should be funded when the Gov't has more pressing obligations? Like our debt to China?
Would you go on a Hawaiian vacation if you can't make your house payment? I bet not! The responsible thing to do is make the house payment then vacation where what's left will take you.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

My apologies, Mike.
SocSec Fraud, not Medicare!
I'll step on a few toes here, but I think SocSec needs to be scrapped entirely. Before you get bent out of shape, it's not gonna happen. It's so entangled in American society, it'll be here a long time. A blister upon the buttocks of the American economy! JMHO!
Your Medicaid thing might work Mike! How good is your crystal ball? Mine is "no bueno por nada!
RGM
I think Bob81 writes VERY well. Being asked if he was "Bob Marshall", I think, is rather a compliment to him, not a "dis" to THE Bob Marshall.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Back up a step there, amigo! If you'll go back and look, I said that's what "I" feel like is going on! As far as defaulting on SocSec! NOT COOL! I just think SocSec is flawed and is now a Gov't run Ponzi scheme.
Once more, this is what I suspect! HEY! I hope I am wrong!
As far as debt goes? If you signed for it, you gotta pay for it!! Makes no difference if it', Uncle Stu or your worst enemy! You borrow, you pay!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

You're a sad, sad person, Mr. Diehl.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

RGM
Go back and read the previous 33 posts on this thread.
"I" didn't bring up SocSec, nor Medicaid! I didn't make insinuations as to somebody else's IQ! I surely am not the "angry" one.
I'm still trying to figure out how Woodrow Wilson's "Isolationist"policy had to do with WWII France?
So, I ask you! Who DO you think needs to "chill"?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Greed?
'Fraid not amigo!
Tightwad?
YES! LOL!!!
Were I a better "tightwad", I'd have more money today!!

The US needs a strong defense. We need to keep our military armed, trained and mobile. If I had been in charge, I would have done it differently! But that's being an armchair quarterback!
I qualify for Medicaid. Cut it!
Kill the ACA, let insurance companies compete across state lines, stomp out frivolous lawsuits and I van buy my own insurance!
There's lots of programs that need to be "ancient" history!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

RGM
I'll even agree to your military thoughts. It not how MUCH you spend, but HOW it's spent!
Roads and infrastructure? Sure!
There is a balance that's way out of whack! The sooner that balance is regained the sooner there will be more to spend on trout streams, etc, etc, etc.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

You're cherry picking RGM!
Cold War era weapons systems no longer necessary? I don't get a sitrep or intel update each day. Hard to say what is or isn't necessary. I have "NO" problem cutting "unnecessary" programs!
I'm not even stating "cut" priorities!
What I've continued to advocate that you and Deihl seem to miss is; we can no longer "cherry pick" programs to cut, trim or fund! The time has come to cut ALL programs and not leave "pet" programs untouched!
you can't cut "just" military or "just" social programs or "just" USDA!
...AND, if those "Cold War" era systems are outdated? Scrap 'em! BUT! If they're still viable, don't scrap them solely to renovate trout streams!
Clueless? You think I may be clueless? I don't think I've made any personal statements towards you. I think you're being a little judgemental!
My ENTIRE premise IS excessive spendng! Corporate welfare, military or otherwise

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

BTW RGM,
Your Dr. L. J. Korb?
He's a member of the "Center for American Progress".
It's a "liberal" think tank! My apologies, but I'm always a bit skeptical of "liberalism"!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Bob
I am aware that the Pittman Robertson act monies are earmarked to be spent on hunting and fishing needs for American sportsmen.
Monies spent above the Pittman Robertson act comes out of everyone.else's pocket.,not just sportsmen.
My "willie nillie" is meant about Obabble and the fact he has not had a budget in 3.5 years and has indebted America to pay for HIS ACA and has incurred more debt than any other president.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bob81
Am I correct in presuming you're the Bob that wrote the article?
....and "YES", income/outgo needs to be, for the lack of a better term, corrected!
My point is, there are bills out there that purchase "frills". Problem is, when and IF the time comes, everybody knows spending cuts MUST happen to correct the overall situation, nobody wants to give up their T-bone for bologna. I'm saying trim back some now before amputation is the only answer.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Do I detect a note of envy and jealousy over the "wealthy"? Envy is only one of the "7 Deadly Sins"! Jealousy promotes anger which is another of the "Deadly Sins" You are aware that we all have the same opportunities, some folks just make better decisions! I wish I'd made some of those better decisions! LOL!!!
Anybody out there ever been hired by a poor man or had an unsuccessful company write them a paycheck? Didn't think so.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

wisc14
Yes, I "think" there are some "entitlement" programs that could be done away with, but the first and "biggest" problem, is people acting responsibly! So many people have lived off Gov't handouts for so long, they're basically "hooked"! Just like a user! I have worked with people who laughingly showed me 5 and 6 drivers license, each with a different SS#!! Not only did they collect a paycheck, but drove around town each month picking up welfare checks! When asked why, the reply was always. ""Because I can!" "Why not?"
My argument isn't necessarily to "kill" all Gov't programs, but to bring to mind that the deeper in debt the US gets, the harder it is to get OUT of debt!
Does it not make sense to trim back SOME of spending now?
When or "IF" the US is faced with "austerity" cuts like Greece, France and the UK, those programs will likely be the first to go! Note, I did say, "IF"!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

poetwild
Debate is pointless if your opponent refuses to accept there may be some validity to your premise! AND, vice versa!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

BTW, Mr. Deihl
Should Obabble and Geithner keep printing money, those SSTF and Tbills won't even make good toilet paper. Do we pay our seniors with thousand dollar bills?

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 47 weeks ago

It's quite obvious that you neither know nor care why Israel is important to the U.S..
Uninformed people like you are dangerous.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

First Mike D, cutting funding saves money. Period. Saving money is lots of things! Idiotic ain't one of 'em! LOL!
Your proposed military ideas are pretty good AND make lots of sense, to a point! Woodrow Wilson tried what you recommended. It's called "isolationism"! It didn't work then, it won't work now.
One of the biggest factors pushing jobs overseas is the "sea" of uncertainty the current administration is causing with it's budgetless spending and economy wrecking ACA!
Medicaid fraud?! I agree! Hands down! But don't stop there! There are some other "entitlement" programs that need to follow the dodo bird into oblivion! But hey, that's a whole 'nother blog.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Mr. Deihl
Other than the history of their era, I could care less about Abe and Teddy! They're long gone!
So, you idea is to reduce military spending to $250 billion annuals. Cut SocSec disability, and eliminate Medicaid?
Very nice!
Now, what about USDA programs that actually, and quite literally, pay farmers to do "nothing"? Or is that a "pet" program you want to protect? Or is it just cherry picking programs that just "chap your chili"?
You see, the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to look at any and all Gov't programs and make decisions based on their merit. You just want to hatchet three and complain about the rest.
BTW, who decides who gets "end of life" care and who doesn't? What happens when a recipient lives beyond their expected life span? Pull the plug? Morphine overdose? Air in the vein?
And while we're at it, do you know, or even "care" about the importance of the US alliance with Israel?

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Liberal. Left. Democrat.
Conservative. Right. Republican.
I'm more along the Tea Party side of things. That said, I'm not so hardline that I don't realize there are good Democrats and bad Republicans.
I do agree with M Deihl on some points, and you too for the record. Like MD, I'd like to see SocSec disability bite the dust. But unlike Mike, I wouldn't stop there. Once more, that's just me.
I'd like to see military with an annual budget but with additional funds available!
I wouldn't close down ALL foreign bases either.
Corporate welfare should be out the door. Obabble succeeded in using taxpayer dollars to purchase GM and hand it over to the UAW. GM likes to brag it paid back it's bailout loan, and indeed they did, with a TARP loan! THAT is coporate welfare!
I don't want to cut just the programs that perturb me, I want to kill the useless ones, redo the abused ones and streamline the remainder.
I'm tired of the cronyism and pork barrel spending!
I'm NOT going to cherry pick select programs. Put ALL the cards on the table. The funds Pittman-Robertson funds to be spent only for the intended purpose.
I'm no political "hack", I just have my own ideas.
Remember, opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one and they all stink!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from poetwild wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

You are an awesome debater FirstBubba. One of your adversaries generally opts to characterize those who see these matters as you do as "idiotic", "stupid"...et cetera.Well, I find your positions quite logical and well stated.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 48 weeks ago

Bob
Fine, whatever PR covers, rave on! What it doesn't cover is my point. The US is heading down a road with a dead end. If you can't pay bills, do you eat every meal at a restaurant?
desendre
Stop believing everything you hear On ABC, CBS and NBC. NOR everything you read on the web! Didn't your grampa teach you "...believe nuthin' you hear and only half of what'cha see..."

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 49 weeks ago

Look, at some point in time, the US and Obabble are going to HAVE to quit spending money willie-nillie or we (America) is going to end up passing austerity measures like Greece, France and England!
Yeah, I'd like to see all wetlands and waterfowl breeding grounds protected! But at what costs!? Whether you believe it or not, those ARE tax dollars.
How much comes from the Pittman/Robertson bill? I don't know, but I do know that's the sort of thing those dollars are earmarked to do.

Bubba

-5 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs