[Hedkffiz]

Here's a tip. Get railroad ties and build the beds up off the ground a bit. Makes weeding, picking things a lot easier.

Yeah, I have to run the ties by the HOA; IIRC they're specifically prohibited by the covenants (I'll have to check). I'm definitely going to raise the vegetable beds and do dark frames to allow the sun to warm the soil. Plus, given CO's crappy clay soil, that'll allow me to work in some good humus.

[Savviioor]

I wouldn't use railroad ties that are oozing creosote.. I've read it's a bad idea, but maybe it's no big deal. I'm using cedar, not sure how long it will last though.

[ttiokjbnhjjillp]

The subject of national debt is a little humorous to me ! Stop and think logically about it for 5 minutes . There are people in office that are (in most cases) decendants of the upper class,and part of the wealthier sections of society. They look at cut backs and budget shortfalls as an opportunity to get face time with a miriad of "Budget cuts", and other ideas that confound them because the majority have never struggled. They have never had to decide who gets a payment and who gets a phone call when they get paid on Friday . We need people at some level with some understanding of "hard times ". I think that is one reason this country had such a growth after the Great Depression. There were people in Government at every level who understood that something that isn't needed is the first cuts you make. Not trimming things that are needed.
For those who have served in the military ,you will know as I do the extent of waste in the government ! The most obvious are the ones that start happening in late August and into September ,when the fiscal budget ends.
Have you ever seen an entire squadron of fighter jets fueled and in standby,then the fuel gets removed and placed into drums so they can be refueled again? The fuel gets contaminated because it may go into a cooking oil barrel or whatever is handy.
Have you ever seen Snap -on tool boxes full of expensive tool jetisoned into the ocean in order to purchase more, at a cost of $20,000 per box.
Have you seen the waste of fuel ,tools ,food, clothes, vehicles, and much more so that your budget doesn't get cut next year? And you have the option of requesting more money to throw out next year !
That....in a nutshell is the United States Government in action my freinds !
If you dont think that happens at every level of government,you are kidding yourselves !
So to think that the people who are wasting so much of our economy and resources are really concerned about saving money and cutting the budget is insane ! They are the problem , not the solution.
I challenge everyone here to sit down at some point in the next 24 hours and actually read the Constitution. Our forefathers gave us a means to an end when the government gets out of control. But first we have to get up and away from Facebook and Twitter , and do something !
I am waiting for a body of activists who want to support and ensure the Constitution to make a stand ....because I will join them ! But I'm not expecting much.

[OpVJokl8]

If the mere $60 billion in cuts is an "assault", then bankruptcy is certain. Because $60 billion barely scratches the surface of what we need to do.

Not to mention it's BS anyway. ALl the Republicans are doing is restoring spending to 2008 levels. Democrats justified the huge runup in spending in 2009 and 2010 as stimulus, but promised that it would be temporary. Now that Republicans are holding them to that promise by rescinding the temporary increases, Democrats are howling.

Guess they lied when they said it was temporary. Big surprise.

[uphokyhuP]

If the mere $60 billion in cuts is an "assault", then bankruptcy is certain. Because $60 billion barely scratches the surface of what we need to do.

Not to mention it's BS anyway. ALl the Republicans are doing is restoring spending to 2008 levels. Democrats justified the huge runup in spending in 2009 and 2010 as stimulus, but promised that it would be temporary. Now that Republicans are holding them to that promise by rescinding the temporary increases, Democrats are howling.

Guess they lied when they said it was temporary. Big surprise.

That's not true. Democrats are discerning people. They want to make appropriate cuts that don't also cost the country hundreds of thousands of jobs like the $60 billion cut this year from Republicans would do, accelerating a double dip recession like what's happening in England.

Democrats see what has happened there and want modest cuts but not crippling ones like Republicans are suggesting to do, and doing it with reckless abandon, with impunity.

We have to do this smart, but unfortunately Boehner just doesn't seem to have any control over his House and no real respect from anyone particularly with his two really dopey comments the last few days. Way to go on bringing back "read my lips", John.

[OpVJokl8]

Since we need to actually cut something like $400 billion per year, Democrats should propose spending cuts of that magnitude that they like better. Saying $60 billion is too much, let's cut $2 billion instead is fundamentally unserious.

And no, Boehner doesn't control the House. That's the point. The House is democratic. I realize that this was forgotten during the Pelosi years.

[uphokyhuP]

Since we need to actually cut something like $400 billion per year, Democrats should propose spending cuts of that magnitude that they like better. Saying $60 billion is too much, let's cut $2 billion instead is fundamentally unserious.

And no, Boehner doesn't control the House. That's the point. The House is democratic. I realize that this was forgotten during the Pelosi years.

Don't evade the reality that Boehner is inept so far. It's only half his fault though; he's a laissez-faire kinda guy who prefers negotiating and cutting deals where both sides have to compromise. Now that he's in the spotlight it sucks for him. He likes to chill, smoke cigars and drink red wine; he's simply not accustomed to wrangling a whole bunch of people together to get shit done and it shows.

The Tea Party people joined with Democrats to cut nearly a half billion of pork from Boehner's own district, therefore the appetite to actually go through everything line by line is a bi-partisan effort.

How many more half billion projects like this exist can they find? Let's start with that since there is compromise already.

But what Republicans are doing right now is having a free-for-all and just cutting every and anything and with impunity.

Between corporate giveaways and pork like that, I bet they could come together and do some smart cutting that actually doesn't kick already struggling middle class people in the teeth.

So far Republicans just can't be taken seriously since they're cutting Big Bird in favor of keeping the oil and gas subsidies in tact.

[OpVJokl8]

Whether or not Boehner is an inept leader is neither here nor there since he's not being asked to lead. He's a non-threatening face for the party. I realize that Democrats would love to have a strong, abrasive leader to make it easier to demonize the face of the party. But having Boehner kills two birds with one stone: it gives them that unthreatening face they want, while preserving an open process which benefits Democrats as well as Republicans.

Now the oil and gas subsidies, that would actually win a vote, but the problem is, they aren't spending. They are part of tax policy. They will be addressed as part of tax reform. Now farm subsidies, those are spending, and they are going to go away with any luck, if not in FY2011 then in the next.

[googlopharm]

We pay for it by going back to the same tax structure under Clinton, before "W" and the GOP Congress screwed it up, and looking at each and every spending bill and agency by itself. We don't close school, fire departments, police stations and stop inspecting foods and medicines.

We don't give Boner his $450 million for an engine that the military doesn't want. We don't cut important programs, but we cut the Pentagon to 3/4 last year's budget. We look carefully at every nation we give money too, and only hand out money that is good for long time US interests.

In other wards, we don't make silly statements such as, "We going to go back to 1990's budget". We have our elected officials actually do some work, do their jobs and cut where needed and leave alone those programs that keep us safe from unscrupulous corporations.

Forgive me if it was implied but not written but at no point in the post is anything along the lines of we pay for it by a tax structure in which the result is our needed spending is matched to needed tax income. Again it may be implied by your first line of the post but the problem as I see it is spending out of control cannot continue, nor can going without a means to pay for it through a more realistic, fair, and less complicated tax system. Now that is of course my opinion but my concern is I find myself in a very small minority that looks at our budget problem for what it is, an income to spending problem. BTW, I agree with you on the hypocrisy that John Boehner is showing in claiming to be about fiscal responsibility all the while showing he is not.

[OpVJokl8]

Revenues were 20% of GDP under Clinton, and that was because of the stock market boom. Realstically, Clinton-era tax rates would yield 18% of GDP. Spending is set at 25% of GDP. Can't tax your way out of this one. Spending cuts will have to provide the bulk of the savings unless you have an idea for collecting more taxes than we've ever collected before.

And $60 billion, that's nothing. Secondly, all domestic agencies got a huge boost from 2009-2010. All these cuts do is get them back to 2008. These are not draconian cuts, this is just ending the stimulus. Democrats lied to the public to convince them to support this new spending as strictly stimulus. It's time for liberals to show some integrity and join everyone else in forcing Democrats to keep their promises.

[googlopharm]

Revenues were 20% of GDP under Clinton, and that was because of the stock market boom. Realstically, Clinton-era tax rates would yield 18% of GDP. Spending is set at 25% of GDP. Can't tax your way out of this one. Spending cuts will have to provide the bulk of the savings unless you have an idea for collecting more taxes than we've ever collected before.

And $60 billion, that's nothing. Secondly, all domestic agencies got a huge boost from 2009-2010. All these cuts do is get them back to 2008. These are not draconian cuts, this is just ending the stimulus. Democrats lied to the public to convince them to support this new spending as strictly stimulus. It's time for liberals to show some integrity and join everyone else in forcing Democrats to keep their promises.

I am not sure I am in conflict with much of what you have here, but my concern still stands. Debt spending cannot continue, the only conclusion is to match needed spending to a needed income. Now if the majority of that gap is made up by spending cuts then so be it but at the same time there very well may be some needed tax increase. Unsure what the levels would be but until the House becomes serious about real budget positioning, this is all a waste of conversation anyway. Just calling out Democrats and stimulus spending does not make up the budget gap, by itself, but does call out the spending resulting in mixed levels of economic realized success.

[OpVJokl8]

Well, taxes right now are something like 14% of GDP, but the bulk of that is temporary tax cuts.

I would be satisfied with just ending the Bush tax cuts, which would take us back to Clinton tax rates. But you still need to knock 7% of GDP off current spending once you've done that.

[googlopharm]

Well, taxes right now are something like 14% of GDP, but the bulk of that is temporary tax cuts.

I would be satisfied with just ending the Bush tax cuts, which would take us back to Clinton tax rates. But you still need to knock 7% of GDP off current spending once you've done that.

Honestly, what choice do we have but to make the necessary cuts to get spending under control? I would be ok at this point with allowing the Bush temporary tax cuts to expire. For one, the intention was never realized. The economy did not grow near enough for the tax cuts to pay for itself in future tax revenues from economic growth. All we ended up with was more debt.

[OpVJokl8]

I'm not for letting the tax cuts expire by themselves, but as part of a general effort to reduce the deficit, I can support that compromise. But it would have to be ALL the tax cuts, not just the ones for the rich, which made up only 20% of the total.

[uphokyhuP]

Whether or not Boehner is an inept leader is neither here nor there since he's not being asked to lead. He's a non-threatening face for the party. I realize that Democrats would love to have a strong, abrasive leader to make it easier to demonize the face of the party. But having Boehner kills two birds with one stone: it gives them that unthreatening face they want, while preserving an open process which benefits Democrats as well as Republicans.

Now the oil and gas subsidies, that would actually win a vote, but the problem is, they aren't spending. They are part of tax policy. They will be addressed as part of tax reform. Now farm subsidies, those are spending, and they are going to go away with any luck, if not in FY2011 then in the next.

No, it matters what kind of leadership we've got and Boehner is totally inept. Last week he put out a vote on 3 bills that did not even have the votes required for passage. He just figured they did. There was a fourth bill in that 24 hour period that he decided to not put up for a vote after he figured out it was lacking the votes, too.

On this issue he should have been the first one to come forward in the House and say, "the Pentagon wants me to cut this from my district, and even though I wish I didn't have to do it, I must cut it from my district". He should have gotten out in front of that. It would have earned the respect of the entire House.

But instead he's such a chicken shit. Not confronting the birthers is going to bite him and all the other more intelligent Republicans right in the ass next year when they have to pass the smell test that they too think that Obama may just be a foreigner.

So far liberals and teabaggers have reached common ground on the kinds of things to cut out first, so hopefully the Weeper of the House will catch up soon.

He's such an embarrassment. This whole process could be going so much smoother if he only started leading.

[OpVJokl8]

No, it matters what kind of leadership we've got and Boehner is totally inept. Last week he put out a vote on 3 bills that did not even have the votes required for passage. He just figured they did. There was a fourth bill in that 24 hour period that he decided to not put up for a vote after he figured out it was lacking the votes, too.

Bringing bills up for a vote is something you do. This idea that the actual vote should be a mere formality is another leftover of the tyrannical Democratic rule.



On this issue he should have been the first one to come forward in the House and say, "the Pentagon wants me to cut this from my district, and even though I wish I didn't have to do it, I must cut it from my district". He should have gotten out in front of that. It would have earned the respect of the entire House. You're right, but you're also expecting an awful lot. First, Boehner already has gone above and beyond, never asking for a single earmark in his entire career. Second, to expect him to turn down something that provides jobs in his district is to ask him to commit hara-kiri. No Democrat would do that, ever. The key to reducing this crap isn't to get Congressmen to renounce their own projects, it's to get Congressmen to stop supporting each other's. Pork barrel spending is fed by quid pro quo. End the corrupt quid pro quo, and Congressmen won't have to support nonsensical projects. And Democrats' hands are very dirty in this, because they use these projects to threaten legislators who don't back big spending bills. They'll even insert earmarks not requested by Republican lawmakers and then run ads saying the Congressman voted against a bill that would have provided jobs in his district. Democrats treat taxpayer money as unlimited and something to pass out at will.

But instead he's such a chicken shit. Not confronting the birthers is going to bite him and all the other more intelligent Republicans right in the ass next year when they have to pass the smell test that they too think that Obama may just be a foreigner. That's nonsense as well. Boehner doesn't have to confront anyone. It's not his job to police the beliefs of his base. Do you see Obama denouncing the Hitler signs in Wisconsin?

So far liberals and teabaggers have reached common ground on the kinds of things to cut out first, so hopefully the Weeper of the House will catch up soon. That's the way it was supposed to work.

He's such an embarrassment. This whole process could be going so much smoother if he only started leading. That's not what he promised to do, and that's not what he's going to do. And frankly I think liberals are being rats for taking what he gives them and then turning around and trying to gain political advantage for it.

[Khurlxgq]

The whole "deficit problem" can be solved in a few days, if people would agree to solve it.
Making spending cuts isn't the big part of the solution, raising taxes is the part no one wants to deal with.
There are sacred cows like the bloated, inefficient military, that could be cut by 80%, except it's all pork.
The way this country handles it's oil deposits, leasing them out and barely participating in the revenue, unlike any other government in the world, (hint: 90% of the oil in the world is government owned). We could see huge revenue increases just by treating oil the way every other country does.
We could remove some of the inefficient structures that "crony capitalism" has built, like our health care system that eats up an extra 7% of gdp that the systems of other countries that deliver equivalent results don't.
We could build high speed rail, which would provide the economy with tens of thousands of much needed jobs over the next few decades, and reduce dependence on imported petroleum by millions of barrels/day as a result.

[erelvenewmeva]

Now the oil and gas subsidies, that would actually win a vote, but the problem is, they aren't spending. They are part of tax policy. They will be addressed as part of tax reform. Now farm subsidies, those are spending, and they are going to go away with any luck, if not in FY2011 then in the next.

The very large amount of oil and gas subsidies are a problem, and they are spending. Saying "They will be addressed", means that you hope that are forgotten and left in place.

The real problem with farm subsidies is not that they are there, but that most of them go to the large argri-businesses. They, like all big business, buy their own legislation that allows them to grab even more of this, keeping it from being dispersed to the small, family farmer who could really use it.

[erelvenewmeva]

Forgive me if it was implied but not written but at no point in the post is anything along the lines of we pay for it by a tax structure in which the result is our needed spending is matched to needed tax income. Again it may be implied by your first line of the post but the problem as I see it is spending out of control cannot continue, nor can going without a means to pay for it through a more realistic, fair, and less complicated tax system. Now that is of course my opinion but my concern is I find myself in a very small minority that looks at our budget problem for what it is, an income to spending problem. BTW, I agree with you on the hypocrisy that John Boehner is showing in claiming to be about fiscal responsibility all the while showing he is not.

My bolding of you post. I agree with this whole heartily. We really do need to cut spending, wasteful spending in all departments, and agencies. Some departments and agencies need to be cut, many cut down, but some really do need more funding. That, along with going back to a reasonable tax rate, even what we had in the Clinton administration, would be a great start at getting us to a point where we could actually start to pay down some of the national debt, before interests on that debt becomes so high we cannot afford even that.

[erelvenewmeva]

The whole "deficit problem" can be solved in a few days, if people would agree to solve it.
1.Making spending cuts isn't the big part of the solution, raising taxes is the part no one wants to deal with.
2.There are sacred cows like the bloated, inefficient military, that could be cut by 80%, except it's all pork.
3.The way this country handles it's oil deposits, leasing them out and barely participating in the revenue, unlike any other government in the world, (hint: 90% of the oil in the world is government owned). We could see huge revenue increases just by treating oil the way every other country does.
4.We could remove some of the inefficient structures that "crony capitalism" has built, like our health care system that eats up an extra 7% of gdp that the systems of other countries that deliver equivalent results don't.
5.We could build high speed rail, which would provide the economy with tens of thousands of much needed jobs over the next few decades, and reduce dependence on imported petroleum by millions of barrels/day as a result.

I numbered your thoughts to make a more easily followed reply. Hope you don't mind.

1. Just as Suggo suggested, both of these must work hand in hand. Neither by itself can address the actual $738 Billion What happens if the debt limit isn't raised - Feb. 17, 2011

2.Yes, yes, yes. We have troops in some countries, only because the military chiefs like to visit and be stationed there. We have left far too many troops in many other countries. Unfortunately, we are paying a lot to replace equipment in the completely unnecessary war in Iraq, that, plus paying for the continuing health care of the 10s of thousands of troops wounded there will cost us about $2 trillion over the next couple of decades.

3. Yep, ending tax giveaways to big oil that is still making obscene profits, and not investing it back into the country.

4. We could easily save $1 trillion a year by just removing everyone from insurance roles, forcing them to streamline and only offer additional insurance to those who feel then need it, and in the process began to catch up with the rest of the world on better health care.

5.High speed rail would provide many good jobs, not only in the building, but in manufacturing all those things used in the construction of these lines. Shipping cargo faster, and a lot cheaper than trucks would save us from sending a lot of money overseas for oil, keep our roads from deteriorating so fast from these heavy loads, allow less traffic congestion which would also save a lot of oil, and provide less expensive and less oil consumption than flying or driving.