If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   In a shocking and totally unpredictable move, GOP leaders look to renege on the defense limit cuts called for in last years sequester deal. Obama and Democrats flabbergasted   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 121
    More: Asinine, GOP leaders, GOP, bait and switches, Democrats, Wall Street reform, Boehner, debacles, Republican leaders  
•       •       •

2984 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2012 at 11:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-03 10:13:28 AM
They made the deal. Stick with it. Lets see what actually happens when we make somewhat meaningful cuts. It is what the Tea Party elected you for.
 
2012-02-03 10:17:23 AM
As I've said in the other non-green thread, they can lobby against sequestration. They can refuse to support sequestration. But they really can't renege on sequestration, since it is law and written directly into the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The only way they can "renege" is if they pass a House bill amending the Budget Control Act of 2011 to remove the sequestration option from defense spending. Good luck getting that through the Senate, though.
 
2012-02-03 10:18:22 AM
They don't care about national security. They care about defense contractors in their home states and districts. I would bet everything we could reach the cuts by clamping down on contractual abuses and bringing some sanity to defense spending.

IT contracting to DoD Finance (DFAS) was an eye opening experience all around. Both in what learned of DoD and my own firm's practices with defense and government contracting.
 
2012-02-03 10:28:11 AM
...but vow to continue their war against the poor and middle classes by attempting to gut every program that benefits them.

Fark these assholes.
 
2012-02-03 10:28:52 AM
Diogenes: If we simply stopped paying companies that simply don't deliver, or actually invoke the late delivery clauses alone, we could save a ton. Let alone the hugely inflated prices for contracts that we negotiate...
 
2012-02-03 10:34:12 AM

hubiestubert: Diogenes: If we simply stopped paying companies that simply don't deliver, or actually invoke the late delivery clauses alone, we could save a ton. Let alone the hugely inflated prices for contracts that we negotiate...


It's like that shiat is never audited, or if it is, they don't follow through. That's not waste from inefficiency, it's waste from not doing a farking thing.
 
2012-02-03 10:37:21 AM
Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

Put them on welfare and let them get unemployment where they can really stimulate the economy (new window)
 
2012-02-03 10:38:34 AM
Surprise.
 
2012-02-03 10:39:08 AM

Diogenes: hubiestubert: Diogenes: If we simply stopped paying companies that simply don't deliver, or actually invoke the late delivery clauses alone, we could save a ton. Let alone the hugely inflated prices for contracts that we negotiate...

It's like that shiat is never audited, or if it is, they don't follow through. That's not waste from inefficiency, it's waste from not doing a farking thing.


To be fair, it's akin to the sad fact, that is we simply enforced the tax code, across the board, we would see a fairly good sized jump in revenue. We don't go after many of the most egregious tax cheats, because, well, they've got grease. It's too hard to nail folks, so we just say, "Good game" and move on.
 
2012-02-03 10:58:19 AM

EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

Put them on welfare and let them get unemployment where they can really stimulate the economy (new window)


10:30am is too early to start drinking the hard stuff.
 
2012-02-03 10:58:52 AM
talkingpointsmemo.com

You gonna get reneged.
 
2012-02-03 11:08:09 AM
republicans are lying pieces of human garbage. this is news?
 
2012-02-03 11:11:31 AM

EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.


I'm confused. Conservatives were opposed to the auto industry bailouts, despite the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs*, because government spending was out of control. What has changed? Is government spending no longer out of control? Do conservatives think we can now afford to pump billions of tax dollars into private companies?

* - It worked, by the way. (new window)
 
2012-02-03 11:29:55 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

I'm confused. Conservatives were opposed to the auto industry bailouts, despite the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs*, because government spending was out of control. What has changed? Is government spending no longer out of control? Do conservatives think we can now afford to pump billions of tax dollars into private companies?

* - It worked, by the way. (new window)


It's because if GM fails, only a few northern workers will be affected. And they deserved it.
But if the defense cuts go through, Iran will be provoked into launching a nuclear strike on Greeneville, SC.
Can't you tell the difference between these oucomes?
 
2012-02-03 11:31:30 AM

rumpelstiltskin: It's because if GM fails, only a few northern workers will be affected. And they deserved it.
But if the defense cuts go through, Iran will be provoked into launching a nuclear strike on Greeneville, SC.
Can't you tell the difference between these oucomes?


Reality vs. Conservative fiction?
 
2012-02-03 11:42:26 AM

Aarontology: Hopefully the tea party will realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about their spending cut ideas and go full civil war on them.


A dream for 2012:

Romney wins the GOP nomination.
Newt, because he is selfish and only cares about Newt, launches a 3rd party campaign.
Ron Paul, cause he's old and doesn't give a shiat, launches another 3rd party campaign.

Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman in 2016.
 
2012-02-03 11:44:33 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

I'm confused. Conservatives were opposed to the auto industry bailouts, despite the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs*, because government spending was out of control. What has changed? Is government spending no longer out of control? Do conservatives think we can now afford to pump billions of tax dollars into private companies?

* - It worked, by the way. (new window)


The problem wasn't that they were bailed out, but that we were told that they were "too big to fail". How do most businessmen define failure? Bankruptcy. What is the first thing the Obama people did after they dropped the hammer on GM and Chrysler? They took them to bankruptcy.

If nothing had been done, the outcome would have been the same.

Nature (and business) abhor vacuums. Had GM and Chrysler been allowed to go bankrupt (in lieu of government bailouts), somebody would have purchased the assets and kept the plants open because they were "too big to fail".

So now that the government has gone in, taken over a business, screwed the bondholders, stock owners, creditors out of what they were due, fired employees, closed down republican favoring dealerships, what makes you think that they will not come after you next? What Obama did was the equal of a banana dictatorship nationalizing industries for the good of the country. Do you do not see the problem with that?
 
2012-02-03 11:50:52 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman in 2016.


If history is any guide, they'd interpret a loss in 2012 as evidence that they are not conservative enough.
 
2012-02-03 11:51:26 AM
anyone who supports/defends these idiots should be forced to fist themselves until they're knucklebrushing the back of their teeth with poop toothpaste
 
2012-02-03 11:51:42 AM
But but but how will the Pentagon be able to afford all of those Stealth Toilets or flying love shacks for Air Force Brass?
 
2012-02-03 11:51:52 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: Aarontology: Hopefully the tea party will realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about their spending cut ideas and go full civil war on them.

A dream for 2012:

Romney wins the GOP nomination.
Newt, because he is selfish and only cares about Newt, launches a 3rd party campaign.
Ron Paul, cause he's old and doesn't give a shiat, launches another 3rd party campaign.

Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman in 2016.


There's a lot of people on Fark who need to realize that Huntsman isn't the saint you're imagining him to be. So he recognizes evolution. I'm supposed to be impressed that he's caught up to the 20th Century?
 
2012-02-03 11:53:32 AM

Diogenes: They don't care about national security. They care about defense contractors in their home states and districts.


Nonsense. They've assured us repeatedly that the government cannot create jobs.
 
2012-02-03 11:54:03 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: Aarontology: Hopefully the tea party will realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about their spending cut ideas and go full civil war on them.

A dream for 2012:

Romney wins the GOP nomination.
Newt, because he is selfish and only cares about Newt, launches a 3rd party campaign.
Ron Paul, cause he's old and doesn't give a shiat, launches another 3rd party campaign.

Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman Buddy Roemer in 2016.


/FTFY.
//Gary Johnson would be a decent second choice.
 
2012-02-03 11:54:15 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: Aarontology: Hopefully the tea party will realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about their spending cut ideas and go full civil war on them.

A dream for 2012:

Romney wins the GOP nomination.
Newt, because he is selfish and only cares about Newt, launches a 3rd party campaign.
Ron Paul, cause he's old and doesn't give a shiat, launches another 3rd party campaign.

Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman in 2016.


Huntsman is only the most sane in a field of idiots. He's a pussy in a bucket full of assholes. I'm with hubiestubert, give me a Buddy Roemer or someone who doesn't swear fealty to the beast.
 
2012-02-03 11:54:21 AM

HMS_Blinkin: I'm supposed to be impressed that he's caught up to the 20th Century?


Still beats being stuck somewhere between colonial times and the Civil War.
 
2012-02-03 11:55:27 AM

EnviroDude: If nothing had been done, the outcome would have been the same.


This fails the common sense test. The government pumped $80 billion into the companies and they successfully went through bankruptcy. How can you say the outcome would have been the same without the $80 billion? That's isn't a small amount of money and it isn't likely that removing that from the equation would have yielded the same outcome.

Someone would have purchased the assets and kept the plants open? You mean someone like Bain? Yeah, cause that's what they always do. They never close the company down and sell the assets and leave people without jobs. Their fault for not being born rich, right?

And again, it worked. I don't understand why this is still being debated. It worked.
 
2012-02-03 11:55:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Diogenes: They don't care about national security. They care about defense contractors in their home states and districts.

Nonsense. They've assured us repeatedly that the government cannot create jobs.


lulz. i'm pretty sure i've heard multiple republicans claim that the government has never created a single job - some of whom were current serving politicians employed by the government!
 
2012-02-03 11:55:44 AM

HMS_Blinkin: ignatius_crumbcake: Aarontology: Hopefully the tea party will realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about their spending cut ideas and go full civil war on them.

A dream for 2012:

Romney wins the GOP nomination.
Newt, because he is selfish and only cares about Newt, launches a 3rd party campaign.
Ron Paul, cause he's old and doesn't give a shiat, launches another 3rd party campaign.

Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman in 2016.

There's a lot of people on Fark who need to realize that Huntsman isn't the saint you're imagining him to be. So he recognizes evolution. I'm supposed to be impressed that he's caught up to the 20th Century?


He is very much a Corporatist. His thoughts on tax policy aren't quite as odd as Johnson's--and to be fair, I'm glad that Johnson went to the Libertarians--but his views on taxation and spending are still very much about client service. I took a hard look at him, and while he's not crazy, he's not someone that exactly inspires me to helping the GOP come out of the hole that it's gotten in by embrasure of the Radical Right and the most selfish of interests.
 
2012-02-03 11:56:34 AM

FlashHarry: lulz. i'm pretty sure i've heard multiple republicans claim that the government has never created a single job - some of whom were current serving politicians employed by the government!


Or politicians themselves, whose jobs and retirement are both because of the government. Good thing they can't vote themselves a pay raise...oh, wait.
 
2012-02-03 11:57:06 AM

EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

Put them on welfare and let them get unemployment where they can really stimulate the economy (new window)


Fark's resident RON PAUL lover doesn't want to cut defense?
 
2012-02-03 11:57:44 AM

HMS_Blinkin: There's a lot of people on Fark who need to realize that Huntsman isn't the saint you're imagining him to be.


Oh, I agree he's not, but I think it's the most possible option. Gary Johnson has left the party and Roemer has no name recognition. Huntsman would be a start, at least.
 
2012-02-03 11:58:48 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: Aarontology: Hopefully the tea party will realize that the GOP doesn't give a damn about their spending cut ideas and go full civil war on them.

A dream for 2012:

Romney wins the GOP nomination.
Newt, because he is selfish and only cares about Newt, launches a 3rd party campaign.
Ron Paul, cause he's old and doesn't give a shiat, launches another 3rd party campaign.

Obama wins in a landslide, the GOP ousts the crazies and returns to being a small government party, and nominates John Huntsman in 2016.


I more realistic scenario, GOP realizes they nominated a RINO and not someone with "true conservative values," goes even farther to the right and ousts the few sane one still hanging on, and nominates Bachmann in 2016.

Either option has its pluses.
 
2012-02-03 11:59:51 AM

RexTalionis: The only way they can "renege" is if they pass a House bill amending the Budget Control Act of 2011 to remove the sequestration option from defense spending. Good luck getting that through the Senate, though


They'll attach it to the full-year extension of the "payroll tax" cut. Since the Senate didn't pass that, the version the House passed is dead.

IOW, get ready for your taxes to go up 1 March. And 1 January, when all the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire.
 
2012-02-03 12:02:36 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: EnviroDude: If nothing had been done, the outcome would have been the same.

This fails the common sense test. The government pumped $80 billion into the companies and they successfully went through bankruptcy. How can you say the outcome would have been the same without the $80 billion? That's isn't a small amount of money and it isn't likely that removing that from the equation would have yielded the same outcome.

Someone would have purchased the assets and kept the plants open? You mean someone like Bain? Yeah, cause that's what they always do. They never close the company down and sell the assets and leave people without jobs. Their fault for not being born rich, right?

And again, it worked. I don't understand why this is still being debated. It worked.


Because Republicans are pissed that it did. If not they could have said "look, Obama let GM fail" and that would have been their TP's this fall. It's simple really.
 
2012-02-03 12:05:27 PM

draa: Because Republicans are pissed that it did.


Of all the things the Republican party has lost, I think I miss pragmatism the most.
 
2012-02-03 12:07:07 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: HMS_Blinkin: There's a lot of people on Fark who need to realize that Huntsman isn't the saint you're imagining him to be.

Oh, I agree he's not, but I think it's the most possible option. Gary Johnson has left the party and Roemer has no name recognition. Huntsman would be a start, at least.


If Huntsman had made it, we'd still be hearing all the jokes about how he's a right wing magic underwear wearing freak that wants to steal poor people's children. As it is, we get to hear that about Romney...who has better hair and presence.
 
2012-02-03 12:07:24 PM

I_C_Weener: They made the deal. Stick with it. Lets see what actually happens when we make somewhat meaningful cuts. It is what the Tea Party elected you for.


They weren't elected to make meaningful spending cuts. They were elected to undermine that uppity n... Kenyan usurper.
 
2012-02-03 12:08:20 PM
Why would anyone make any deal with a Republican? They are consistent liars.

Let me see. We spend more on our military than roughly the next ten countries combined, yet people think that is a "no cost" item. People who are over protected thinking they need more are gutless cowards. It's like some gun nut who thinks it needs dozens of guns when it only has two hands to use them and probably couldn't even use one effectively. Cowards.

Personally, I was always taught that Americans were brave John Wayne types. Makes me think that cowards are generally un-American.
 
2012-02-03 12:12:15 PM
They made a deal now they must honor it.

I suspect this is mostly bluster anyway and the law will be carried out.

/is there anyone other than defense contractors who think shaving a tiny amount from the military will cripple us? Even most military experts seem to agree that we'll be fine.
 
2012-02-03 12:12:52 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

I'm confused. Conservatives were opposed to the auto industry bailouts, despite the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs*, because government spending was out of control. What has changed? Is government spending no longer out of control? Do conservatives think we can now afford to pump billions of tax dollars into private companies?

* - It worked, by the way. (new window)


You see auto workers belong to unions. It wasn't about jobs, it iwas about union busting and potentially weakening their political foes.
 
2012-02-03 12:14:14 PM

rosebud_the_sled: Let me see. We spend more on our military than roughly the next ten countries combined, yet people think that is a "no cost" item. People who are over protected thinking they need more are gutless cowards. It's like some gun nut who thinks it needs dozens of guns when it only has two hands to use them and probably couldn't even use one effectively. Cowards.


Nothing wrong with having multiple guns, since each handles differently, and it's fun to go out shooting different guns. Plus, you can arm yourself, your friends, and your friends' friends. I want to be fully armed when the zombies come. That being said, last I checked, the government wasn't trying to take away guns, just freedom and privacy.
 
2012-02-03 12:14:19 PM

RexTalionis: The only way they can "renege" is if they pass a House bill amending the Budget Control Act of 2011 to remove the sequestration option from defense spending. Good luck getting that through the Senate, though.


I believe that's exactly what they're trying to do.
 
2012-02-03 12:16:57 PM
jeffnolan.com

BUST A DEAL, FACE THE WHEEL
 
2012-02-03 12:17:17 PM
This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists
 
2012-02-03 12:18:00 PM

EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.

Put them on welfare and let them get unemployment where they can really stimulate the economy (new window)


It's too early for your brand of nonsense, troll.
 
2012-02-03 12:18:12 PM
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
 
2012-02-03 12:23:10 PM

EnviroDude: Who cares if 80,000 people lose their jobs. They were stupid enough to work for the military complex.


??

I thought Republicans were supposed to like it when people suckling off the government's teat were cut off.

Oh wait, that's only for people helping brown skin people, not people blowing up brown skin people.
 
2012-02-03 12:25:33 PM

RedPhoenix122: I want to be fully armed when the zombies come. That being said, last I checked, the government wasn't trying to take away guns, just freedom and privacy.


I stand corrected. I always forget about the zombie apocalypse. Although, I always figured that two Kevlar sleeves with leather and a katana would be the best secondary to some large magazine primary.

Unfortunately, I also agree with the diminished freedom/privacy point. F**k you, Carnivore! I know you're out there.
 
2012-02-03 12:28:05 PM

Diogenes:

IT contracting to DoD Finance (DFAS) was an eye opening experience all around. Both in what learned of DoD and my own firm's practices with defense and government contracting.


DHS experience for me. Truly horrible. Bad planning, crippled management, unrealistic timelines, and at any moment some GS-15 could walk in the door and it was 'tools down' until their little tour was over.
 
2012-02-03 12:29:52 PM

rosebud_the_sled: I stand corrected. I always forget about the zombie apocalypse. Although, I always figured that two Kevlar sleeves with leather and a katana would be the best secondary to some large magazine primary.


Katana would be bad. Against zombies, you'd run the risk of the blade getting stuck in one. Better to use blunt force, such as a bat or mace.

I figure a good arsenal would be an M4 with good optics, to pick off targets at a distance, and a pistol or 2 for when in close quarters.
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report