United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:17 am

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9548
Interrupting our program in progress for this important bulletin:

It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office. I repeat:
It is 12:00 noon and Rex Tilleraon is still in office.

Now, back to our program...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8456
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
JFC @this thread. Tillerson isn't on the way out. And yes, the State Department budget needs to be cut. We need to erase every bit of additional bloat that occurred while Odumbo was in office. And that's just to start.


Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.


This is hilarious. You've been gobsmacked at my suggestion that the State Department needs painful budget cuts, then you pretend to support a 20% cut to their budget at the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure every career bureaucrat in the State Department would consider a 20% budget cut the end of the world....


Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
Is the point in the purse fight where you claim to actually have the opposite position you've argued against the entire time?


What position do you think I'm changing? I'm pretty sure you have it wrong, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just white knighting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30822
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
JFC @this thread. Tillerson isn't on the way out. And yes, the State Department budget needs to be cut. We need to erase every bit of additional bloat that occurred while Odumbo was in office. And that's just to start.


Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.


This is hilarious. You've been gobsmacked at my suggestion that the State Department needs painful budget cuts, then you pretend to support a 20% cut to their budget at the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure every career bureaucrat in the State Department would consider a 20% budget cut the end of the world....


Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
Is the point in the purse fight where you claim to actually have the opposite position you've argued against the entire time?


What position do you think I'm changing? I'm pretty sure you have it wrong, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just white knighting.
Uh huh. I'll have you down for both cuts and no cuts to the DoS.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.


:lol:

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8456
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.


This is hilarious. You've been gobsmacked at my suggestion that the State Department needs painful budget cuts, then you pretend to support a 20% cut to their budget at the end of the thread. I'm pretty sure every career bureaucrat in the State Department would consider a 20% budget cut the end of the world....


Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.
Is the point in the purse fight where you claim to actually have the opposite position you've argued against the entire time?


What position do you think I'm changing? I'm pretty sure you have it wrong, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just white knighting.
Uh huh. I'll have you down for both cuts and no cuts to the DoS.


Yep, you have it wrong.

Nowhere have I said that we shouldn't cut the DoS. And of course, I've said we should cut it numerous times.

Here are all my comments on the idea of cutting the DoS. Only a full blown idiot would claim that I have said we shouldn't cut the DoS.

"The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful."

“70,000 is a lot. But, what's the right number and where should the cuts be??”

“If you are just saying it can be smaller, I'm cool with that”

In response to this, "I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.", I said this, "Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous."

“We've learned that I think the State Dept. has a lot of people, and that it can almost certainly use downsizing.”

“Agree for the most part, although the cuts need to go further back than Obama. We're above $50B today, and have been between $20B and $45B for the 20 years prior to Obama, and above $50B since Obama. A good start would be getting below $40B, and then lower if possible.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8456
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.


:lol:

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."


Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.

This is basic organizational efficiency. If an organization is overstaffed and bloated, there are positions that are not providing real value to the organization. Staffing creep happens all the time in large organizations.
Making cuts to that staffing can be done, and is done all the time, without majorly impacting the goals and duties of the organization. My argument has always been that making the cuts in a haphazard manner, which is what is being done, has a negative impact, ie "painful", and doing it the right way, will not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30822
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.




DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."


Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.

This is basic organizational efficiency. If an organization is overstaffed and bloated, there are positions that are not providing real value to the organization. Staffing creep happens all the time in large organizations.
Making cuts to that staffing can be done, and is done all the time, without majorly impacting the goals and duties of the organization. My argument has always been that making the cuts in a haphazard manner, which is what is being done, has a negative impact, ie "painful", and doing it the right way, will not.
Uh huhImage

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5801
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Yes, hilarious, you're making up shirt again, or you're just too dense to get it.
Nowhere have I said that cutting the state dept. isn't a good idea. And I have no issue with cutting a lot of it.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. I'm gobsmacked at your continuous misstatement of what I've said numerous times.

Cutting the dept. by 20% doesn't have to be painful if you're cutting the 20% (or whatever the right number is) that is duplicative bloat. It is painful if you make cuts without figuring out what positions are important, which are not, and laying out a plan to cut the latter, and fill the former.

That's my issue, plain and simple. You're the one who, in your typical fashion, can't understand that and continues to make up arguments based on your lack of comprehension.


:lol:

DC has now pivoted the crux of his argument to the difference between "painful cuts" and "cutting it a lot."


Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.

This is basic organizational efficiency. If an organization is overstaffed and bloated, there are positions that are not providing real value to the organization. Staffing creep happens all the time in large organizations.
Making cuts to that staffing can be done, and is done all the time, without majorly impacting the goals and duties of the organization. My argument has always been that making the cuts in a haphazard manner, which is what is being done, has a negative impact, ie "painful", and doing it the right way, will not.

Correct


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!