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.

(Washington Post)   Oh, the horror -- what if they gave a sequester, and nobody got hurt?   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Washington Monthly, GOP House  
•       •       •

2912 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-02 06:57:03 AM  
Mr. Always Wrong thinks it won't hurt?  Yeah, it will.
 
2013-03-02 07:24:44 AM  
I see WaPo is taking after Drudge and his awesome web design

/kidding. I know its a "Printer Friendly" page. Seriously, subs?
 
2013-03-02 07:39:42 AM  
Cutting my pay 20% won't hurt him.
 
2013-03-02 07:39:44 AM  
Washington Post?

*skeptical face*
*mouses over link*
*sees name Krauthammer*

Yeah... I don't think so.
 
2013-03-02 07:40:17 AM  
"a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist told the Post"

Remember when anonymous sources were only used by the National Enquirer and no one took it seriously?
 
2013-03-02 07:42:27 AM  

SilentStrider: Washington Post?

*skeptical face*
*mouses over link*
*sees name Krauthammer*

Yeah... I don't think so.


Exactly what I did.. though after posting, I did peek in briefly.
 
2013-03-02 07:53:54 AM  
TFA: A 2011  Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.

Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It's firemen first. That's the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget, and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office, stacked with nepotistic incompetents, remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck - the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cuts.


Yup.
 
2013-03-02 08:13:41 AM  
So does this mean the sequester is back to being the GOP's idea? Because last week it was 0bama's baby.
 
2013-03-02 08:36:39 AM  

St_Francis_P: So does this mean the sequester is back to being the GOP's idea? Because last week it was 0bama's baby.


Depends on their audience. To the rubes at "Town Hall" meetings (Tea Party Rallies, Klan gatherings, Visitor's day at the Old Folks Home), the Sequester is all Obama's fault, because of hos it will adversely effect everyday Americans. At $10,000-a-plate fundraiser dinners, the Sequester is the GOP's doing, because it hurts Unionized federal workers, cuts "entitlements", and didn't increase taxes on Corporations or the rich, nor will it really hurt them at all in the long run.
 
2013-03-02 08:37:43 AM  
Depends on their audience. To the rubes at "Town Hall" meetings (Tea Party Rallies, Klan gatherings, Visitor's day at the Old Folks Home), the Sequester is all Obama's fault, because of how it will adversely effect everyday Americans. At $10,000-a-plate fundraiser dinners, the Sequester is the GOP's doing, because it hurts Unionized federal workers, cuts "entitlements", and didn't increase taxes on Corporations or the rich, nor will it really hurt them at all in the long run.

FTFM
 
2013-03-02 08:43:46 AM  
Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

this whole problem is so trivial to "solve"
The House can propose a budget, cutting wherever they want.
If they dont work with the Dems, then they shouldnt be shocked when the Dems dont agree with the GOP budget, nor shocked if the president doesnt support it.

See, the thing is, compromise and playing nice with others.
WHY would others play nice with you or just give you what you want??
 
2013-03-02 09:28:13 AM  
Where did all of the grown ups go?  I thought they were supposed to be running the country.  The thing is, people don't give a shiat about government workers.  They think we're just overpaid whiners.  They don't realize that we are normal people and need a paycheck to live...and to patronize local businesses.  The 20% paycut most of us will eventually get out of this sequester deal will trickle down, so to speak.  Then again, Republicans like trickle down, so I'm sure they're ok with it.
 
2013-03-02 09:30:16 AM  

namatad: Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

this whole problem is so trivial to "solve"
The House can propose a budget, cutting wherever they want.
If they dont work with the Dems, then they shouldnt be shocked when the Dems dont agree with the GOP budget, nor shocked if the president doesnt support it.

See, the thing is, compromise and playing nice with others.
WHY would others play nice with you or just give you what you want??




Like the constitution matters anymore to either party. lol!
 
2013-03-02 09:37:23 AM  
"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."
 
2013-03-02 09:39:36 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: "Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."


He'd like to balance the budget. I guess that's wrong now.
 
2013-03-02 09:43:46 AM  

St_Francis_P: Dancin_In_Anson: "Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

He'd like to balance the budget. I guess that's wrong now.


Whatever happened to that?
Oh right, Clinton had a balanced budget or surplus.
Bush fixed that by cutting taxes and increasing spending.
so now ... what??????????
more tax cuts?? LOL
 
2013-03-02 09:47:54 AM  

EmmaLou: Where did all of the grown ups go?  I thought they were supposed to be running the country.  The thing is, people don't give a shiat about government workers.  They think we're just overpaid whiners.  They don't realize that we are normal people and need a paycheck to live...and to patronize local businesses.  The 20% paycut most of us will eventually get out of this sequester deal will trickle down, so to speak.  Then again, Republicans like trickle down, so I'm sure they're ok with it.


You're not people to them, you're scapegoats

/know which other group of government employees should get an immediate 20% pay cut?
 
2013-03-02 09:53:29 AM  

St_Francis_P: He'd like to balance the budget. I guess that's wrong now


So why was he recently so vehemently opposed to the automatic cuts?

namatad: Oh right, Clinton had a balanced budget or surplus.


What happened prior to the (projected) balanced budget? Specifically in 1997.
 
2013-03-02 09:54:53 AM  
you know ...
the less I sleep, the more I think that anything that I say might make sense

so
HOW about we start pushing for a balanced budget???
Whatever they cant cut must be made up in tax increases!!

TADA
/It would be so funny to watch the GOP fight against a balanced budget!!
 
2013-03-02 09:55:47 AM  
Instead of cutting spending to government programs why don't they just eliminate all the corporate subsidies. That should easily cover the sequestered cuts and not hurt the American public.
 
2013-03-02 09:56:53 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: namatad: Oh right, Clinton had a balanced budget or surplus.

What happened prior to the (projected) balanced budget? Specifically in 1997.


Clinton got a blow job?
WOOT RIGHT IN ONE!!
 
2013-03-02 09:57:35 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: He'd like to balance the budget. I guess that's wrong now

So why was he recently so vehemently opposed to the automatic cuts?


Because he thinks taxes should be raised. I happen to agree. Yes, he played a game with the GOP and lost this round.
 
2013-03-02 09:57:36 AM  

Ghastly: Instead of cutting spending to government programs why don't they just eliminate all the corporate subsidies. That should easily cover the sequestered cuts and not hurt the American public.


There you go, using logic and what not.
We cant hurt the makers and job creators!!
 
2013-03-02 10:10:13 AM  
They turned me into a newt!
 
2013-03-02 10:15:53 AM  

St_Francis_P: Because he thinks taxes should be raised. I happen to agree.


Do you itemize?
 
2013-03-02 10:22:23 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: Because he thinks taxes should be raised. I happen to agree.

Do you itemize?


Yes. Why?
 
2013-03-02 10:25:22 AM  

edmo: Cutting my pay 20% won't hurt him.


Count yourself lucky. There are some farkers (who shall remain nameless - they'll out themselves if they want to do so) who are in real danger of losing their jobs within the next month or so.

I don't think that should happen to you and that things like that will definitely slow economic recovery, but it could be a lot worse.
 
2013-03-02 10:25:54 AM  

Ghastly: Instead of cutting spending to government programs why don't they just eliminate all the corporate subsidies. That should easily cover the sequestered cuts and not hurt the American public.


The oil companies would use it as an excuse to charge $15/gal for gas.
 
2013-03-02 10:32:35 AM  

NeoCortex42: Ghastly: Instead of cutting spending to government programs why don't they just eliminate all the corporate subsidies. That should easily cover the sequestered cuts and not hurt the American public.

The oil companies would use it as an excuse to charge $15/gal for gas.


They don't need an excuse to charge whatever the hell they want. Most Americans are so stupid they blame the presiding president (especially if it's a guy on 'the other side') instead of the oil companies. They'll also still buy gas.

There are a lot of loopholes that need to be closed, both for corporations and individuals. I'm all for a flat tax.
 
2013-03-02 10:38:28 AM  

St_Francis_P: Yes. Why?


So you want to pay more taxes but won't until forced to.
 
2013-03-02 10:45:43 AM  
So now that it's law the GOP talking points shift back from blaming Obama for their idea and claiming that it will destroy us to cheering how good of an idea it is.
 
2013-03-02 10:54:54 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: Yes. Why?

So you want to pay more taxes but won't until forced to.


That's a really childish argument.
 
2013-03-02 10:58:04 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: He'd like to balance the budget. I guess that's wrong now

So why was he recently so vehemently opposed to the automatic cuts?

namatad: Oh right, Clinton had a balanced budget or surplus.

What happened prior to the (projected) balanced budget? Specifically in 1997.


Automatic spending cuts are you terrible idea.
 
2013-03-02 10:59:06 AM  
what if they gave a sequester, and nobody got hurt?

Republicans will stop calling it "the Obama sequester" and start calling it "the totally awesome, we-thought-of-it Republican sequester"

And the teabaggers will swallow it whole.
 
2013-03-02 11:00:04 AM  
So, anyway, Rick Scott is freaking out about being informed that the DoD is cutting $135 million dollars to funding to Florida and furloughing 31,000 people after the Sequester came down.

But keep arguing that it's not going to hurt anyone.

http://www.local10.com/news/Pentagon-warns-Fla-Gov-Rick-Scott-about- bu dget-cuts/-/1717324/19147344/-/qbuehp/-/index.html
 
2013-03-02 11:02:08 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: Because he thinks taxes should be raised. I happen to agree.

Do you itemize?


...and this matters why?
 
2013-03-02 11:02:10 AM  

RexTalionis: So, anyway, Rick Scott is freaking out about being informed that the DoD is cutting $135 million dollars to funding to Florida and furloughing 31,000 people after the Sequester came down.

But keep arguing that it's not going to hurt anyone.

http://www.local10.com/news/Pentagon-warns-Fla-Gov-Rick-Scott-about- bu dget-cuts/-/1717324/19147344/-/qbuehp/-/index.html


Mathematically - how can anyone make the argument that the sequester leaves no victims? Those people making that argument don't understand how this works.
 
2013-03-02 11:02:38 AM  
 
2013-03-02 11:04:42 AM  

RexTalionis: Dancin_In_Anson: namatad: Oh right, Clinton had a balanced budget or surplus.

What happened prior to the (projected) balanced budget? Specifically in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_and_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93pres en t%29

Those happened.


Bah, misread.
 
2013-03-02 11:08:33 AM  
Wow - Krauthammer doing damage control already? The sequester is going to hurt a lot more than anyone thought, apparently.
 
2013-03-02 11:08:42 AM  
When the GOP House passed an alternative that cut where the real money is - entitlement spending

How brave of the GOP House, sacrificing the middle class on behalf of corporate tax loopholes. Amazing they aren't more popular.
 
2013-03-02 11:11:48 AM  
So Krauthammer thinks the sequester won't hurt the economy?

Crap...we're all doomed.
 
2013-03-02 11:11:59 AM  
Which demonstrates that, for Obama, this is not about deficit reduction

Odd, then, that Obama has reduced the deficit.

The purpose is purely political: to complete his Election Day victory by breaking the Republican opposition.

Never miss an opportunity to be the victim.
 
2013-03-02 11:14:40 AM  

MmmmBacon: St_Francis_P: So does this mean the sequester is back to being the GOP's idea? Because last week it was 0bama's baby.

Depends on their audience. To the rubes at "Town Hall" meetings (Tea Party Rallies, Klan gatherings, Visitor's day at the Old Folks Home), the Sequester is all Obama's fault, because of hos it will adversely effect everyday Americans. At $10,000-a-plate fundraiser dinners, the Sequester is the GOP's doing, because it hurts Unionized federal workers, cuts "entitlements", and didn't increase taxes on Corporations or the rich, nor will it really hurt them at all in the long run.


this
 
2013-03-02 11:15:27 AM  
The Mayans only held an Apocalypse every 5000 years. Washington tries to hold an apocalypse every 6 weeks.
 
2013-03-02 11:18:00 AM  

RexTalionis: RexTalionis: Dancin_In_Anson: namatad: Oh right, Clinton had a balanced budget or surplus.

What happened prior to the (projected) balanced budget? Specifically in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_and_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93pres en t%29

Those happened.

Bah, misread.


and the financial markets/housing  de-regulations that led to the bailouts.
 
2013-03-02 11:18:27 AM  

SilentStrider: Washington Post?

*skeptical face*
*mouses over link*
*sees name Krauthammer*

Yeah... I don't think so.


I wish I could do that on mobile.
 
2013-03-02 11:20:37 AM  
also Bush's budgets didn't include the wars. they were "emergency funded" and off the books where the budget was concerned.
 
2013-03-02 11:21:29 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: A 2011  Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.

Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It's firemen first. That's the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget, and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office, stacked with nepotistic incompetents, remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck - the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cuts.

Yup.


Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we actually HAD targeted budget cuts? Boy, that'd be grand.
 
2013-03-02 11:22:49 AM  
Obama should give everything the R's want ...but call it something liberal...' redistribution act' or something...just to watch the idiots vote it down out of spite and ignorance.
 
Displayed 50 of 192 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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