Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Politico)   Democrats: You see. The defense cuts will kill this country's economy. House GOP: So?   (politico.com) divider line 207
    More: Scary, GOP, Democrats, Barbara Mikulski, House Republicans, Patty Murray, senate democrats  
•       •       •

5591 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2013 at 11:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-31 09:49:04 AM  
I thought defense cuts were what the Democrats bargained for in these debt ceiling deals?
 
2013-01-31 09:54:40 AM  

I_C_Weener: I thought defense cuts were what the Democrats bargained for in these debt ceiling deals?


They were, but those cuts were largely designed to be as unappealing as possible and as badly designed as possible so they had a threat over their heads to force negotiation.  That's why the cuts are across the board instead of actually targeting what needs to be targeted.  But it was a stupid deal because at least half the GOP caucus will vote for anything that cuts government spending no matter what spending it is, their own paychecks aside.
 
2013-01-31 09:56:25 AM  
Keep the defense cuts. We'll be better off in the long run.
 
2013-01-31 10:01:59 AM  
I guess people forget that some of the Tea Baggers would love to see the economy crater into a depression
 
2013-01-31 10:15:30 AM  

GAT_00: GOP caucus will vote for anything that cuts government spending

craters the economy so they can point to a depression on the Democrats' watch
 
2013-01-31 10:43:52 AM  
The GOP has been trying to torpedo the economy ever since Obama got elected. Now it seems that even they can't deny that our defense budget is absurd.
 
2013-01-31 10:47:37 AM  
Bull.  Shiat.  The Republicans have already retreated on tax increases, the debt ceiling, and immigration.  They'll cave on this too.
 
2013-01-31 10:49:50 AM  
We'll see how long this lasts when folks start calling their Congresscritters...
 
2013-01-31 10:50:44 AM  

GAT_00: They were, but those cuts were largely designed to be as unappealing as possible and as badly designed as possible so they had a threat over their heads to force negotiation. That's why the cuts are across the board instead of actually targeting what needs to be targeted. But it was a stupid deal because at least half the GOP caucus will vote for anything that cuts government spending no matter what spending it is, their own paychecks aside.


I'm mixed on this. We need to cut, hell we have to cut. However the military is one of the few places that the central government should be spending money. I'd like to think that cutting the military would cause us to be less likely to be the world's police but I find that unlikely. Odds are the politicians would still want to do everything that we are doing now plus run to all the world disasters, now with with less men and material.

Dems trying not to cut the military industrial complex and the GOP saying to cut?! What a weird world we have.
 
2013-01-31 10:52:49 AM  
How much integrity do you have if you have to resort to gimmicks in order to get you to do your job?
 
2013-01-31 10:53:23 AM  

Mentat: Bull.  Shiat.  The Republicans have already retreated on tax increases, the debt ceiling, and immigration.  They'll cave on this too.


I hope, but they're more hardlined on this then any of those things. Boehner is screwed if he does and screwed if he doesn't do something with the defense cuts

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: I thought defense cuts were what the Democrats bargained for in these debt ceiling deals?

They were, but those cuts were largely designed to be as unappealing as possible and as badly designed as possible so they had a threat over their heads to force negotiation.  That's why the cuts are across the board instead of actually targeting what needs to be targeted.  But it was a stupid deal because at least half the GOP caucus will vote for anything that cuts government spending no matter what spending it is, their own paychecks aside.


maybe we could get them to make an addendum that if they don't avoid the sequestration, then their pay should be cut too. that's 535(?) paychecks that don't have to be paid. That's what? $535,000 a year?
 
2013-01-31 10:54:24 AM  
I'm sure the defense cuts will only affect corporations that give money to democratic senators.
 
2013-01-31 10:56:03 AM  

hubiestubert: We'll see how long this lasts when folks start calling their Congresscritters...


already emailed both Warren and Kennedy (my congresscritter) but a boatload of good it'll do since I imagine they don't like the idea of across the board cuts
 
2013-01-31 11:00:56 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm sure the defense cuts will only affect corporations that give money to democratic senators.


defense cuts are nondescriminate across the board cuts. They'll all get screwed, regardless of party

/seriously, just tell the DoD to give them a budget that reduces 15% but the DoD decides what 15% to cut
//oh wait, that would mean that the little pet projects that the congresscritters want would be cut
///fark off, Congress
 
2013-01-31 11:07:22 AM  
I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.
 
2013-01-31 11:09:38 AM  

R.A.Danny: I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.


B-2 bombers

that said, across the board cuts are stupid regardless. Let the damn DoD decide what they need since they, you know, have some idea what we're facing
 
2013-01-31 11:12:33 AM  

somedude210: Mentat: Bull. Shiat. The Republicans have already retreated on tax increases, the debt ceiling, and immigration. They'll cave on this too.

I hope, but they're more hardlined on this then any of those things. Boehner is screwed if he does and screwed if he doesn't do something with the defense cuts


More hard-lined than taxes?  I don't think so.  Once Boeing starts putting the screws to them, they'll cave.
 
2013-01-31 11:14:33 AM  

somedude210: R.A.Danny: I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.

B-2 bombers

that said, across the board cuts are stupid regardless. Let the damn DoD decide what they need since they, you know, have some idea what we're facing


Decide what are the least bad cuts tactically (to meet mission objectives).

Determine which cuts results in the fewest job losses.

Pick a balanced middle-ground.
 
2013-01-31 11:16:49 AM  

mrshowrules: somedude210: R.A.Danny: I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.

B-2 bombers

that said, across the board cuts are stupid regardless. Let the damn DoD decide what they need since they, you know, have some idea what we're facing

Decide what are the least bad cuts tactically (to meet mission objectives).

Determine which cuts results in the fewest job losses.

Pick a balanced middle-ground.


The problem that arises is that you could easily get the 15% cut if you got rid of these 50 state solution contracts that the DoD doesn't want. It may screw over the private contractors but this will free shiat up to have them start developing stuff that the DoD actually wants
 
2013-01-31 11:28:54 AM  

somedude210: mrshowrules: somedude210: R.A.Danny: I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.

B-2 bombers

that said, across the board cuts are stupid regardless. Let the damn DoD decide what they need since they, you know, have some idea what we're facing

Decide what are the least bad cuts tactically (to meet mission objectives).

Determine which cuts results in the fewest job losses.

Pick a balanced middle-ground.

The problem that arises is that you could easily get the 15% cut if you got rid of these 50 state solution contracts that the DoD doesn't want. It may screw over the private contractors but this will free shiat up to have them start developing stuff that the DoD actually wants


Job protection (regardless if public or private) should be one of the two primary factors.  If you can cut contractor A by $100M and it costs 10,000 jobs but cut contract B by $100M and it only costs 5,000 jobs, that should be your criteria (balanced with military tactical ability of course).
 
2013-01-31 11:34:11 AM  

mrshowrules: somedude210: mrshowrules: somedude210: R.A.Danny: I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.

B-2 bombers

that said, across the board cuts are stupid regardless. Let the damn DoD decide what they need since they, you know, have some idea what we're facing

Decide what are the least bad cuts tactically (to meet mission objectives).

Determine which cuts results in the fewest job losses.

Pick a balanced middle-ground.

The problem that arises is that you could easily get the 15% cut if you got rid of these 50 state solution contracts that the DoD doesn't want. It may screw over the private contractors but this will free shiat up to have them start developing stuff that the DoD actually wants

Job protection (regardless if public or private) should be one of the two primary factors.  If you can cut contractor A by $100M and it costs 10,000 jobs but cut contract B by $100M and it only costs 5,000 jobs, that should be your criteria (balanced with military tactical ability of course).


or cut A and B and ask them that you'll gladly hire them to develop new tech if it meets their mission requirements
 
2013-01-31 11:45:54 AM  

somedude210: mrshowrules: somedude210: mrshowrules: somedude210: R.A.Danny: I thought it was Democrats that wanted to hold bake sales for aircraft carriers.

B-2 bombers

that said, across the board cuts are stupid regardless. Let the damn DoD decide what they need since they, you know, have some idea what we're facing

Decide what are the least bad cuts tactically (to meet mission objectives).

Determine which cuts results in the fewest job losses.

Pick a balanced middle-ground.

The problem that arises is that you could easily get the 15% cut if you got rid of these 50 state solution contracts that the DoD doesn't want. It may screw over the private contractors but this will free shiat up to have them start developing stuff that the DoD actually wants

Job protection (regardless if public or private) should be one of the two primary factors.  If you can cut contractor A by $100M and it costs 10,000 jobs but cut contract B by $100M and it only costs 5,000 jobs, that should be your criteria (balanced with military tactical ability of course).

or cut A and B and ask them that you'll gladly hire them to develop new tech if it meets their mission requirements


I thought of that afterwards.  You need  a longer term plan.  Just assume that defense needs to shrink by half in the next 20 years and how do you transition to that with the least impact to employment and the economy.

Renewable energy infrastructure, hi-tech and science and innovation would seem to be the no brainier.
 
2013-01-31 11:53:23 AM  
The GOP is going to continue to create as much misery, for as many Americans as they can until the public realizes that Democrats are bad.
 
2013-01-31 11:54:19 AM  
I love the patriotism of my fellow Americans.

We get into two wars, then cut taxes instead of increasing taxes to pay for them.

We then send the same troops into those two wars over and over and over again, rather than drafting new personnel or encouraging their own kids to enlist.

I did see a lot of magnetic yellow ribbons on cars that proved how much they loved America, though.

/I'm still cool about my federal taxes going up.
//Hell, Alabama won't raise their income taxes 'cause politicians here are cowards.
 
2013-01-31 11:54:26 AM  
The money men will be on the phone with Boner shortly. This is a bit of theater.
 
2013-01-31 11:57:02 AM  
I never thought I would see the day the GOP was willing to cut defense spending and the Democrats would be defending it.

The GOP has been consumed by it's hatred of Obama, and he's not even that liberal of a Democrat.
 
2013-01-31 11:57:10 AM  
Sean Hannity was going on and on about the negative GDP growth for Q4 2012 with a token liberal guest on yesterday's radio show as I was listening on my drive home.  The guest calmly explained how it had to do with the government cutting spending, and how the private sector was actually doing quite well.  "Isn't that what Republicans want, lower government spending and private sector growth?".  It was absolutely hilarious to listen to Hannity spin this as something bad.

/nothing else to listen to on my way home
 
2013-01-31 12:00:35 PM  
If anyone ever doubted that today's GOP stands for nothing and simply reflexively gain-says anything the Dems propose, this should be the nail in the coffin of that argument.
 
2013-01-31 12:01:11 PM  
Bring all of our troops home. Close all overseas bases. Do not replace them with civilian contractors.

The best way to support our troops is to keep them on American soil, and conduct our foreign policy in such a way that they need never leave again.

Best way to reduce the defense budget.
 
2013-01-31 12:01:31 PM  
If our economic health relies on us spending insane amounts of money that we don't have on defense, we're screwed.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-01-31 12:01:41 PM  
So now military spending that exceeds the aggregate of every other country's military spending is now acceptable preferable?
 
2013-01-31 12:02:02 PM  
If we weren't in a slow recovery, I'd be all for defense cuts.

Given near-zero interest rates and the slow recovery, however, now is not the time to slow spending.
 
2013-01-31 12:02:31 PM  
I'm really, really farking worried about NIS funding cuts. =/. My adviser has explained that, given the way the NIS mortgages out grants in advance, even a small, 5% cut is going to be *DEVASTATING* to the available grant money.

Seriously, we don't spend enough on research as it is, and we're going to CUT it!?
 
2013-01-31 12:02:50 PM  
It's definitely a conundrum.  The DoD is a major factor in creating private sector jobs via their contracts.  No matter 'how' you cut it, there's going to be a lot of unhappy citizens losing jobs because of necessary cuts 'somewhere'.

When you accept the reality that cuts are needed and are 'going' to happen, then you simply have to decide on which cuts are going to do the most good in the long term for the country, while trying to alleviate the problem of lost jobs with new training programs or a retooling or 'something' for the areas hardest hit by the cuts.
 
2013-01-31 12:06:43 PM  

Infernalist: It's definitely a conundrum.  The DoD is a major factor in creating private sector jobs via their contracts.  No matter 'how' you cut it, there's going to be a lot of unhappy citizens losing jobs because of necessary cuts 'somewhere'.

When you accept the reality that cuts are needed and are 'going' to happen, then you simply have to decide on which cuts are going to do the most good in the long term for the country, while trying to alleviate the problem of lost jobs with new training programs or a retooling or 'something' for the areas hardest hit by the cuts.


You're begging the question. Cuts are NOT needed now. Down the road when the economy is stronger, yes. Not now.
 
2013-01-31 12:07:14 PM  

GanjSmokr: If our economic health relies on us spending insane amounts of money that we don't have on defense, we're screwed.

/DNRTFA


I feel like that has been the case for quite a long time. These wars we fight seem to primarily function as an inventory liquidator.
 
2013-01-31 12:07:45 PM  
Defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs, relative to that money being spent on:

1. Clean energy
2. Health care
3. Education
4. Increased household consumption through targeted tax cuts.

We have shown the overall employment effects - including direct, indirect, and induced job creation  -  of  spending  on  the  military  in  contrast  with  four alternative domestic spending categories: clean energy, health care, education, and increasing household consumption through tax cuts. Specifically, we have shown that spending on all of these alternatives to military spending create substantially more jobs per $1 billion in expenditures relative to military spending. Link, .pdf
 
2013-01-31 12:10:02 PM  
Dems want to increase defense spending and the repubs dont.

We are through the looking glass here.  Next will be an update about human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
 
2013-01-31 12:10:31 PM  

Felgraf: I'm really, really farking worried about NIS funding cuts. =/. My adviser has explained that, given the way the NIS mortgages out grants in advance, even a small, 5% cut is going to be *DEVASTATING* to the available grant money.

Seriously, we don't spend enough on research as it is, and we're going to CUT it!?


What's "NIS"?
 
2013-01-31 12:11:29 PM  
Defense spending as we know it is being undermined by drones, which are extremely cheap. We might as well start getting used to the idea of much lower defense budgets.

The best way to boost the economy in the short term is probably reinstating Obama's payroll tax cut.
 
2013-01-31 12:13:00 PM  

ilambiquated: Defense spending as we know it is being undermined by drones, which are extremely cheap. We might as well start getting used to the idea of much lower defense budgets.

The best way to boost the economy in the short term is probably reinstating Obama's payroll tax cut.


yep and yep.
 
2013-01-31 12:13:27 PM  

meat0918: I never thought I would see the day the GOP was willing to cut defense spending and the Democrats would be defending it.

The GOP has been consumed by it's hatred of Obama, and he's not even that liberal of a Democrat.


It's almost as if the world is not black and white. Cutting wasteful defense spending (wasteful meaning projects the Pentagon specifically does not want) and using that money for higher ROI stimulus spending would be ideal.

These across board cuts are not the way to trim the budget.
 
2013-01-31 12:15:15 PM  

jasimo: If we weren't in a slow recovery, I'd be all for defense cuts.

Given near-zero interest rates and the slow recovery, however, now is not the time to slow spending.


That's my feeling on it.

I'd be backing the GOP's push for cuts if they were at all sane and happening during a time of private businesses being able to absorb the loss in business and employee those that lost their jobs.

Heck, even in the best of times I'd expect a small recession after significant defense budget cuts
 
2013-01-31 12:15:41 PM  

Mentat: Bull.  Shiat.  The Republicans have already retreated on tax increases, the debt ceiling, and immigration.  They'll cave on this too.


Still, I would love that the House GOP stick to their guns on this one.  Only to see the campaign money from defense contractors divert over to primary candidates that support defense spending and then have the TPers scream holy murder over it.
 
2013-01-31 12:15:48 PM  

somedude210: maybe we could get them to make an addendum that if they don't avoid the sequestration, then their pay should be cut too. that's 535(?) paychecks that don't have to be paid. That's what? $535,000 a year?


they each make $174,000 so it's more like $93,000,000 a year total
 
2013-01-31 12:15:54 PM  

ilambiquated: The best way to boost the economy in the short term is probably reinstating Obama's payroll tax cut.


I'd prefer the Making Work Pay tax credit over the payroll tax credit, but either would result in a welcome boost to aggregate demand.
 
2013-01-31 12:15:58 PM  

vernonFL: Keep the defense cuts. We'll be better off in the long run.


The less money the army has, the fewer people we can piss off with it.
 
2013-01-31 12:16:04 PM  

max_pooper: These across board cuts are not the way to trim the budget.


You're right, but political shenanigans make targeted cuts nearly impossible.
 
2013-01-31 12:16:13 PM  

Felgraf: I'm really, really farking worried about NIS funding cuts. =/. My adviser has explained that, given the way the NIS mortgages out grants in advance, even a small, 5% cut is going to be *DEVASTATING* to the available grant money.

Seriously, we don't spend enough on research as it is, and we're going to CUT it!?


Yes, because we can not agree on targeted cuts the only way to actually significantly cut government spending is to cut it all across the board. The only problem is that the Sequestering cuts don't go far enough.

What is far enough? Well that would be roughly $1.1 trillion dollars in government spending ... next year. Yeah we have not cut enough until we have completely closed the deficit. At the same time we the people  should be demanding a law that the government can not run a deficit over 3 percent of tax revenue, with an automatic measure to increase both corporate and personal income taxes by 1 percent a year on all tax brackets until the funding gap is closed.
 
2013-01-31 12:18:18 PM  
.1% contraction is not killing our economy. The private sector grew. This is not a horrible thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report