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)   Jack Markell: Obama isn't exaggerating. We're all pretty boned after March 1st   (politico.com) divider line 531
    More: Interesting, obama, Head Start, National Governors Association  
•       •       •

7499 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-25 09:25:40 AM
s13.postimage.org
 
2013-02-25 09:36:39 AM
So, goodbye America, hello Mad Max hellscape?
 
2013-02-25 09:36:57 AM
If 85 billion dollars in cuts is going to be devastating to our economy, what are we going to do when bond yields rise a few percent and we're forced to cut hundreds of billions more?  Doesn't this seem like an issue that should be addressed immediately, and not put off to the future?
 
2013-02-25 09:38:35 AM
Austerity has done wonders* for every economy it's been tried on. It'll do the same for us.

* Lowered the living standards of and immiserated 98% of the citizens while redistributing even more that country's wealth to its elite
 
2013-02-25 09:39:08 AM
So Obama is complaining about his own plan? What Chutzpa!
 
2013-02-25 09:39:16 AM
I like how subby doesn't identify who Jack Markell is, like everyone already knows him.
 
2013-02-25 09:39:24 AM
Read the comments. Republicans are already blaming Obama for the sequestration, calling it all his idea and acting as if it's not a problem anyway. Sort of like how Obama does nothing, but also manages to change our way of life and destroy America from the inside with his sekrit socialism. Sorry, but it looks like the sequestration is going through. Republicans, the anti-New Deal party.
 
2013-02-25 09:39:41 AM
"

If 85 billion dollars in cuts is going to be devastating to our economy, what are we going to do when bond yields rise a few percent and we're forced to cut hundreds of billions more?  Doesn't this seem like an issue that should be addressed immediately, and not put off to the future?"If you had taken an introductory course in economics you would realize that austerity will most likely do far more harm to our bond years than keeping spending at current levels.  Outbonds are at some of the lowest rates in the past 100 years, we should be borrowing like crazy while the interest rates are so low to get theeconomy moving again.
 
2013-02-25 09:39:43 AM

MattStafford: If 85 billion dollars in cuts is going to be devastating to our economy, what are we going to do when bond yields rise a few percent and we're forced to cut hundreds of billions more?  Doesn't this seem like an issue that should be addressed immediately, and not put off to the future?


You do realize that austerity during an economic recovery makes the deficit worse, not better, right?
 
2013-02-25 09:40:01 AM
I'll just leave this here.

www.dystopiaearth.com
 
2013-02-25 09:40:44 AM

MattStafford: If 85 billion dollars in cuts is going to be devastating to our economy, what are we going to do when bond yields rise a few percent and we're forced to cut hundreds of billions more?  Doesn't this seem like an issue that should be addressed immediately, and not put off to the future?


If you were trying to cut your personal budget, you'd probably sit down, figure out how much you're spending, and what areas it would be practical to cut. Like, you probably can easily cut your cable bill, but it might be harder to cut your gas bill (since you still have to drive to work). The sequester is like you going to your utility company and saying, "I'm cutting my spending by 10%, so I won't be paying for that electricity bill in full next month". You could probably cut your electricity use some, but instead of figuring out how to do that, you're just allocating less money to pay the bill.
 
2013-02-25 09:40:54 AM

DamnYankees: I like how subby doesn't identify who Jack Markell is, like everyone already knows him.


Shut up DY, don't make me hit you
 
2013-02-25 09:42:57 AM

ferretman: So Obama is complaining about his own plan? What Chutzpa!


lol.

2/10
 
2013-02-25 09:43:13 AM
Whoaaaaaa
A democrat agrees with 0bama on this issue?
Wows!!

If we are boned by spending more than we did last year then we will never get spending under control
 
2013-02-25 09:43:51 AM
Is it scary enough to get Obama to ease up on his "tax the rich moar" mantra?
 
2013-02-25 09:45:41 AM

amiable: If you had taken an introductory course in economics you would realize that austerity will most likely do far more harm to our bond years than keeping spending at current levels. Outbonds are at some of the lowest rates in the past 100 years, we should be borrowing like crazy while the interest rates are so low to get theeconomy moving again.


Just because our bond yields are low now does not mean they will be low permanently.  If we borrow like crazy, as you say, and then yields rise, we will be forced to cut all of those programs funded by debt issued at the low yields (we clearly will not be able to afford it anymore).
 
2013-02-25 09:46:02 AM
FTFA: "... [The] most frustrating conversation any governor can have these days is when we talk to a business [person] who says, 'I'd love to hire, but I can't find people with the right skills,'"

Maybe so-called "the job creators" should their employees themselves and stop asking government to train employees for them on the taxpayer's dime? Just a thought.
 
2013-02-25 09:46:03 AM
I heard an interesting snippet on the radio this morning about how more and more people aren't paying attention to this because they feel it's just another "OMG EVERYONE PANIC, EVERYTHING WILL BE SHUT DOWN!!" situation that will get resolved at the last minute just like all the other "OMG EVERYONE PANIC, EVERYTHING WILL BE SHUT DOWN!! " wolf cries.

Meh.  The way I see it, the politicians will handle this whole situation the way they will handle it without any input from me.  I'm not going to worry about it too much either.
 
2013-02-25 09:46:31 AM

Katie98_KT: MattStafford: If 85 billion dollars in cuts is going to be devastating to our economy, what are we going to do when bond yields rise a few percent and we're forced to cut hundreds of billions more?  Doesn't this seem like an issue that should be addressed immediately, and not put off to the future?

If you were trying to cut your personal budget, you'd probably sit down, figure out how much you're spending, and what areas it would be practical to cut. Like, you probably can easily cut your cable bill, but it might be harder to cut your gas bill (since you still have to drive to work). The sequester is like you going to your utility company and saying, "I'm cutting my spending by 10%, so I won't be paying for that electricity bill in full next month". You could probably cut your electricity use some, but instead of figuring out how to do that, you're just allocating less money to pay the bill.


Eh, not really. This the debt ceiling analogy. The sequester actually does cut expenditures, not just the ability to pay for them.
 
2013-02-25 09:46:40 AM
I love how Republicans are handling this.

You've got the Fox and Friends camp: Why is the president blowing this made-up crisis out of proportion? #scarequester
And then you've got the John Boehner camp: Why did the president doom us to this disaster? #obamaquester
 
2013-02-25 09:46:47 AM
As Chuck Todd said this AM:  If the consequences are that bad, why is no one doing anything to stop it this week?  Because this is all about the blame game now.
 
2013-02-25 09:47:06 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: If we are boned by spending more than we did last year then we will never get spending under control


Empires aren't cheap.
 
2013-02-25 09:47:12 AM
Wow.  14 comments and we've already got mattstaff, verminman and badmilk weighing in.

Who's got the popcorn?
 
2013-02-25 09:47:45 AM

Cletus C.: Is it scary enough to get Obama to ease up on his "tax the rich moar" mantra?


Which are still at historic lows?
 
2013-02-25 09:47:47 AM

Hollie Maea: You do realize that austerity during an economic recovery makes the deficit worse, not better, right?


I understand that there will be a vicious spiral here.  You cut government spending, economy goes into recession, tax revenue decreases, forced to cut more government spending.  The unfortunate thing about this situation is that this is an eventuality.  It will happen.  The question is, do we suffer the pain now, or push it off to the future where it will be magnified.
 
2013-02-25 09:48:30 AM

Counter_Intelligent: Cletus C.: Is it scary enough to get Obama to ease up on his "tax the rich moar" mantra?

Which are still at historic lows?


So, no?
 
2013-02-25 09:48:55 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: As Chuck Todd said this AM:  If the consequences are that bad, why is no one doing anything to stop it this week?  Because this is all about the blame game now.


What do you mean "no one"? What is Obama supposed to do about this? If the House passed a bill repealing the sequester, the Senate would pass it and the White House would sign it. The GOP is the one who is not "doing anything" about it. There's nothing the White House can do about that.
 
2013-02-25 09:49:56 AM

Katie98_KT: If you were trying to cut your personal budget, you'd probably sit down, figure out how much you're spending, and what areas it would be practical to cut. Like, you probably can easily cut your cable bill, but it might be harder to cut your gas bill (since you still have to drive to work). The sequester is like you going to your utility company and saying, "I'm cutting my spending by 10%, so I won't be paying for that electricity bill in full next month". You could probably cut your electricity use some, but instead of figuring out how to do that, you're just allocating less money to pay the bill.


The issue is - we're sitting down to cut our budget, yet refusing to cut anything of any substance.  You're suggesting that a better plan than cutting 10% of all of your spending (including gas) would be to continue to rack up the debt without changing your habits at all, and next month you'll come up with some sort of strategy.  Which is extremely unlikely to happen, and will just make the entire situation more difficult and painful when the cuts eventually must happen, due to no more credit being extended.
 
2013-02-25 09:50:16 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Whoaaaaaa
A democrat agrees with 0bama on this issue?
Wows!!

If we are boned by spending more than we did last year then we will never get spending under control


You may know less about economics than MattStafford. Government spending in terms of number of dollars is a useless metric. Spending, revenue, debt and deficits in terms of percentage of GDP is how actual economists exam governmnet policy.
 
2013-02-25 09:51:03 AM

Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: If we are boned by spending more than we did last year then we will never get spending under control

Empires aren't cheap.


They used to be. You know when we we had people in office who knew something about the economy and how they grow
 
2013-02-25 09:51:14 AM

Cletus C.: Counter_Intelligent: Cletus C.: Is it scary enough to get Obama to ease up on his "tax the rich moar" mantra?

Which are still at historic lows?

So, no?


Well considering they only got rich off of the hard work of others, they should be taxed astronomically.

"Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks."
 
2013-02-25 09:51:20 AM

Hollie Maea: You do realize that austerity during an economic recovery makes the deficit worse, not better, right?


I'm not sure an 85 billion cut in a 3.5 trillion dollar budget qualifies as "austerity".
 
2013-02-25 09:51:31 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Whoaaaaaa
A democrat agrees with 0bama on this issue?
Wows!!

If we are boned by spending more than we did last year then we will never get spending under control


We can (for the 6.02e23rd time) cut spending on things like Head Start and school lunches, or we can cut spending on things like subsidies to oil companies and military hardware we don't need.

Or, for a real-world example, we can 40% furlough people like my boss' boss and several on her staff (while us low-level peons employed by the contractors get paid same as ever) to save some cash; or we can close those loopholes the GOP was gleefully Dexter-staring at during the campaign. $85B this year isn't impossible to find in the Federal budget, and you don't have to raid Federal salaries to find it.
 
2013-02-25 09:51:35 AM

MattStafford: Just because our bond yields are low now does not mean they will be low permanently.  If we borrow like crazy, as you say, and then yields rise, we will be forced to cut all of those programs funded by debt issued at the low yields (we clearly will not be able to afford it anymore).


Then why propose a solution to somehting that isn't a problem?  Bond yields are low because even with our debt (which in a debt to gdp sense as better than most industrialization nations) we are considered a safe bet.  Focus should first be on improving the economy and THEN paying down the debt.  You know like in 2000 when Bush was handed a budget surplus and then frittered it all away on tax cuts and unnecessary wars instead of paying down the debt.  Crashing the economy via austerity measures is the exactly the opposite of what we need now:  see Europe.  The problem you are proposing does not exist under current circumstances, and it is a long ways off if it ever does become a problem.

As a side note: the republican interest in paying down the debt will last exactly as long as it takes to get a Republican in the white house.  You will then never hear about the debt as other issues (conservative issues) take priority.  This entire debate is about kneecapping the president and punishing the country for voting for him again.  It is not going to end well for the Republicans.
 
2013-02-25 09:51:38 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: So, goodbye America, hello Mad Max hellscape?


It is amusing that that you think you will be able to afford leather chaps and fuel.
 
2013-02-25 09:52:00 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: They used to be. You know when we we had people in office who knew something about the economy and how they grow


By exploiting labor and exploiting 3rd world people, duh!
 
2013-02-25 09:52:01 AM

MattStafford: amiable: If you had taken an introductory course in economics you would realize that austerity will most likely do far more harm to our bond years than keeping spending at current levels. Outbonds are at some of the lowest rates in the past 100 years, we should be borrowing like crazy while the interest rates are so low to get theeconomy moving again.

Just because our bond yields are low now does not mean they will be low permanently.  If we borrow like crazy, as you say, and then yields rise, we will be forced to cut all of those programs funded by debt issued at the low yields (we clearly will not be able to afford it anymore).


I see just can't let this one go can you? You are wrong. It has been explained to you many times. You only look more and more ignorant every time you bring this claptrap up again.

When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?
 
2013-02-25 09:53:08 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: If we are boned by spending more than we did last year then we will never get spending under control

Empires aren't cheap.

They used to be. You know when we we had people in office who knew something about the economy and how they grow


I know, if we could just get rid of these damn Republicans in congress we would be much better off.
 
2013-02-25 09:53:17 AM

MattStafford: Hollie Maea: You do realize that austerity during an economic recovery makes the deficit worse, not better, right?

I understand that there will be a vicious spiral here.  You cut government spending, economy goes into recession, tax revenue decreases, forced to cut more government spending.  The unfortunate thing about this situation is that this is an eventuality.  It will happen.  The question is, do we suffer the pain now, or push it off to the future where it will be magnified.


Ah, yes...my favorite example of conservative logic.  "If we don't do something about the deficit now,  it might completely decimate our economy someday, so let's make sure that we completely decimate our economy right now!"
 
2013-02-25 09:53:24 AM
This is the logical result of electing republicans to office.
 
2013-02-25 09:53:25 AM

max_pooper: When are you going to admit you lied when you claimed to have earned a degree in economics?


Can you and I agree not to respond to him in this thread? Otherwise it will seriously derail the entire thing.
 
2013-02-25 09:53:27 AM
Well, the WH could simply ignore the sequester and continue to spend as it had before. Would trigger one hell of a legal battle, but it might be worth it
 
2013-02-25 09:54:47 AM

FarkedOver: Cletus C.: Counter_Intelligent: Cletus C.: Is it scary enough to get Obama to ease up on his "tax the rich moar" mantra?

Which are still at historic lows?

So, no?

Well considering they only got rich off of the hard work of others, they should be taxed astronomically.

"Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks."


I always thought labour was more important than capital but you are now making capital sound sexy and mysterious.
 
2013-02-25 09:54:57 AM

amiable: Then why propose a solution to somehting that isn't a problem? Bond yields are low because even with our debt (which in a debt to gdp sense as better than most industrialization nations) we are considered a safe bet. Focus should first be on improving the economy and THEN paying down the debt.


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  We should stop racking up these massive deficits now instead of trying to deal with this situation in a few years when yields rise and we don't have the luxury of postponing spending cuts.
 
2013-02-25 09:55:12 AM

Katie98_KT: MattStafford: If 85 billion dollars in cuts is going to be devastating to our economy, what are we going to do when bond yields rise a few percent and we're forced to cut hundreds of billions more?  Doesn't this seem like an issue that should be addressed immediately, and not put off to the future?

If you were trying to cut your personal budget, you'd probably sit down, figure out how much you're spending, and what areas it would be practical to cut. Like, you probably can easily cut your cable bill, but it might be harder to cut your gas bill (since you still have to drive to work). The sequester is like you going to your utility company and saying, "I'm cutting my spending by 10%, so I won't be paying for that electricity bill in full next month". You could probably cut your electricity use some, but instead of figuring out how to do that, you're just allocating less money to pay the bill.


Its actually more like, "Hey, I was gonna spend 110% of 2012 expense in 2013, and 120% of 2012 in 2014...but instead, I'm cutting that to 108% and 116%...so I can't pay 10% more for utilities next year...only 8% more."
 
2013-02-25 09:55:31 AM

mrshowrules: I always thought labour was more important than capital but you are now making capital sound sexy and mysterious.


It doesn't suck in the way we would like :(
 
2013-02-25 09:55:42 AM

amiable: a side note: the republican interest in paying down the debt will last exactly as long as it takes to get a Republican in the white house.  You will then never hear about the debt as other issues (conservative issues) take priority.  This entire debate is about kneecapping the president and punishing the country for voting for him again.  It is not going to end well for the Republicans.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-25 09:56:37 AM

Hollie Maea: Ah, yes...my favorite example of conservative logic. "If we don't do something about the deficit now, it might completely decimate our economy someday, so let's make sure that we completely decimate our economy right now!"


Unless you think bond yields will permanently stay at record lows, then the deficit will destroy our economy in the near future.  The longer we continue with our current spending habits, the worse it will be.
 
2013-02-25 09:57:31 AM
I really used to love the politics tab..... I could handle the usual derp. And really skull and cman you could at least talk to. Please do not reply to the threadshiatter Stafford. He has no interest in furthering the discussion. He is only here to obfuscate the discussion. He is the worst of the trolls.

Ok now that I have said that.... How is it possible that people look at an immediate cut of 85 billion! and not assume the worst. You are taking that right out of the economy this year! You want to do it slowly, sure go ahead, a big cut every year is going to hurt.

I know that's what the pubs actually want. The history books to show the blah man presided over a terrible economy.
 
2013-02-25 09:57:48 AM

DamnYankees: Can you and I agree not to respond to him in this thread? Otherwise it will seriously derail the entire thing.


max_pooper over there is far more interested in derailing the thread than I am, you can trust me on that.
 
Displayed 50 of 531 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report