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)   Two weeks in, the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents all agree on one thing: The sequester bites   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 76
    More: Followup, Democrats, Republican, political independents, independents, snacks  
•       •       •

1976 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2013 at 6:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-15 11:00:24 PM

Hobodeluxe: Unemployment would be down around 6.8% if it weren't for public sector job losses due to not overspending anymore with money that we don't have.



ftfy
 
2013-03-15 11:02:37 PM

Mentat: Remember that submarine that was set on fire?  They can't repair it because of sequestration.


and you believe that?  How cute.
 
2013-03-15 11:37:06 PM

TV's Vinnie: The mistake was assuming that the republicans give a flying crap if the country slides down the toilet or not. They've been diligently working to wreck the USA since Reagan was President. A sequester only put their nation-wrecking onto the fast track.


If the country is in a world of shiat when the election cycle hits, they can say "Hey, vote for us instead of the guys in power now", even if their intransigent obstructionism caused the world of shiat to begin with, and delayed the recovery from it.  The shiatty icing on that turd cake is that they want to reinstate the same policies that created the shiattiness to begin with.

shiat!
 
2013-03-15 11:38:02 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: herpaderpadooo

I you want to threadshiat you should try to come in at the beginning of the thread.  FYI.
 
2013-03-15 11:43:50 PM

Genevieve Marie: The WindowLicker: If he is a veteran of the armed forces, he can still use his GI bill benefits to take classes. What has been cut is Tuition Assistance programs. The TA programs are not a Veteran Affairs entitlement, rather the funds come from the respective services operating budget

His GI Bill Benefits paid for a certain number of semesters, and that runs out after this semester. After that, he was planning to finish his final semester using the tuition assistance program through the national guard.

He's been working and doing his national guard duties for the last few years as a full time student, so he had to take fewer hours than he would have liked a for a few semesters.


Sorry, GM.  My sister's stepson is in a similar spot, but he was supposed to be just now starting his school at Michigan.  So now he's going back to Afghanistan for the fourth time this summer instead of going to school like they promised.  I don't like to see my little sister cry like that.  It makes a (smallish) big brother really... pissed off.
 
2013-03-16 12:03:59 AM

Aquapope: TV's Vinnie: The mistake was assuming that the republicans give a flying crap if the country slides down the toilet or not. They've been diligently working to wreck the USA since Reagan was President. A sequester only put their nation-wrecking onto the fast track.

If the country is in a world of shiat when the election cycle hits, they can say "Hey, vote for us instead of the guys in power now", even if their intransigent obstructionism caused the world of shiat to begin with, and delayed the recovery from it.  The shiatty icing on that turd cake is that they want to reinstate the same policies that created the shiattiness to begin with.

shiat!


I get a feeling that aside from the usual Angry White People, the voting demographics have changed somewhat since 2010, and the gop may be in for some more bad news next year.
 
2013-03-16 12:06:01 AM

heinekenftw: So the sequester is going to suck.  We know that.

But will Congress grow the fark up and actually work together to solve this issue?

I'm not holding my breath.


America is going to suffer as long as Republicans have any sort of power. Democrats may not be perfect, or even particularly good, but compared to the Republicans, especially the Teatard brigade, they're farking saints.
 
2013-03-16 12:11:05 AM

Aquapope: Genevieve Marie: The WindowLicker: If he is a veteran of the armed forces, he can still use his GI bill benefits to take classes. What has been cut is Tuition Assistance programs. The TA programs are not a Veteran Affairs entitlement, rather the funds come from the respective services operating budget

His GI Bill Benefits paid for a certain number of semesters, and that runs out after this semester. After that, he was planning to finish his final semester using the tuition assistance program through the national guard.

He's been working and doing his national guard duties for the last few years as a full time student, so he had to take fewer hours than he would have liked a for a few semesters.

Sorry, GM.  My sister's stepson is in a similar spot, but he was supposed to be just now starting his school at Michigan.  So now he's going back to Afghanistan for the fourth time this summer instead of going to school like they promised.  I don't like to see my little sister cry like that.  It makes a (smallish) big brother really... pissed off.


Ugh, that's even worse. That's genuinely terrible. That's why this thing is so frustrating. It's massively irresponsible and the people it's screwing aren't the people at the top, it's the people who don't deserve to be screwed like this and who can't do anything about it.
 
2013-03-16 12:45:46 AM
studs up The left derp is so strong in this thread you'd think Krugman had a million sock puppets. Oh, and yeah, Latvia says "suck my balls, Paul. Wrong again asshole".

So, how did Krugman vote in Congress on 85bil. of cuts, effected over 7 months. with no discretion available to make the cuts in a rational manner? Senator Wyman (D/OR) suggested nixing just two tax exemptions (offshore/c.interest) to supply 100 billion - `oh noes' revenue says Grover (and if one doesn't agree with Grover one isn't a True `Pachy', worthy of being gaffed into the parade of heroes by some mendacious media mahouts - one is, according to the Norq, `the head of a rat in a bottle of Coke'... - the New RINO - drink up! and watch as one's trunk shrivels in direct proportion to Christie's expanding girth - what a party).

So, build schedules/contracts/subcontracts (you know, for submarine and other toys that go boom) get pushed back or rolled over into a future spending bill (limiting deployments are the least of the problems) - have to be reworked/rewritten - secondary/tertiary and unintended/unanticipated future `spending' costs of materials/energy/pers., e.g., hire/rehire the highly skilled who go elsewhere in the interim. is probably going to eat up any `savings'. I'll wait for the eventual GAO report on the cost of the sequester (the debt ceiling theater, in `11, that led to this fine mess, had a direct cost of 1.2 billion in `11 and nicked our credit rating - potential for increased borrowing costs in future - Oh, a DEBT TAX, thanx, GOP!).

I've watched all the hearings of Com/Subcoms responsible for this or that dept.(s) take testimony in the run up to sequester implementation - Reps/Sens/Dept. heads/JCS pretty much all whined like Dante Hicks `I'm/we're not even supposed to be here!!' (no shiat). After the fact, some R's have been saying that `well, it sucks, but `we' cut it!' (good luck selling that soapy shiat); any ape is `competent' enough to merely drag its knuckles and eat its turds - and beat its chest over those oh so complex accomplishments.

It is interesting to note that every proposed budget in the House (since `10) has denied those Bank regulatory agencies funded in part or in whole by Congress requests for increases in IT spending (hardware/software/pers) that would go to providing some rudimentary oversight of OTC/ShadowB's/not to mention `business grade' service for the farking regulatory customers - underfund agencies and then condemn the quality of work - worthless gov. workers and onerous/confused regulations! Instead of mere regulatory capture let's just privatize all the regulatory enforcement so the invisible hand can stroke the market efficiently, raising the animal spirits and bubbling up until one goes all swanny with the wonder of it all (Bernie M. says hi, from club fed - Guillotine is excellent device to give the taxpayer an edge).

 /back to the IG investigation of all those missing billions in Iraq - and the Senate investigative report on JP Morgan //kinda relaxing reading, considering the alternative:
//http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=C REC
 
2013-03-16 02:22:26 AM

Aquapope: TV's Vinnie: The mistake was assuming that the republicans give a flying crap if the country slides down the toilet or not. They've been diligently working to wreck the USA since Reagan was President. A sequester only put their nation-wrecking onto the fast track.

If the country is in a world of shiat when the election cycle hits, they can say "Hey, vote for us instead of the guys in power now", even if their intransigent obstructionism caused the world of shiat to begin with, and delayed the recovery from it.  The shiatty icing on that turd cake is that they want to reinstate the same policies that created the shiattiness to begin with.

shiat!


I dunno. Seems like if the Dems didn't like it, they'd say something.
 
m00
2013-03-16 02:41:35 AM
The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.
 
2013-03-16 02:45:45 AM

m00: The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.


You should maybe read  this explanation of what sequestration is in political economy terms and why it's devastating to certain programs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration
 
m00
2013-03-16 03:09:08 AM

Genevieve Marie: m00: The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.

You should maybe read  this explanation of what sequestration is in political economy terms and why it's devastating to certain programs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration


I know what it is. I think not-balancing-the-budget is what's going to be devastating. Federal budget in 2007 was $2.8 trillion.* Federal budget in 2012 was 3.8 trillion. We have a spending problem. You can't tell me that at the height of the Bush years, we were living frugally. Meanwhile, revenue went from 2.4 trillion to 2.6 trillion.

* Note that Bush cheated and had $115 billion in emergency appropriations. But still.
 
2013-03-16 03:11:26 AM

m00: Genevieve Marie: m00: The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.

You should maybe read  this explanation of what sequestration is in political economy terms and why it's devastating to certain programs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration

I know what it is. I think not-balancing-the-budget is what's going to be devastating. Federal budget in 2007 was $2.8 trillion.* Federal budget in 2012 was 3.8 trillion. We have a spending problem. You can't tell me that at the height of the Bush years, we were living frugally. Meanwhile, revenue went from 2.4 trillion to 2.6 trillion.

* Note that Bush cheated and had $115 billion in emergency appropriations. But still.


So cut the military budget severely, convert from the expensive patchwork healthcare system to a single-payer or socialized system and nationalize or break up the big banks and end all bank supports. Boom, budgetary "problem" solved by addressing the places that public economics in the US are really out of whack.
 
2013-03-16 03:17:06 AM

m00: I know what it is. I think not-balancing-the-budget is what's going to be devastating. Federal budget in 2007 was $2.8 trillion.* Federal budget in 2012 was 3.8 trillion. We have a spending problem. You can't tell me that at the height of the Bush years, we were living frugally. Meanwhile, revenue went from 2.4 trillion to 2.6 trillion.


And we can debate that, sure, but acting like these forced cuts that are across the board and crippling to a lot of important programs is the way  to go about that is asinine.

Strategic budget cuts that take into account the costs and benefits of each program and actually do target waste is one thing. This goes after a lot of important, vital programs that people depend on.
 
m00
2013-03-16 03:26:16 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: m00: Genevieve Marie: m00: The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.

You should maybe read  this explanation of what sequestration is in political economy terms and why it's devastating to certain programs.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration

I know what it is. I think not-balancing-the-budget is what's going to be devastating. Federal budget in 2007 was $2.8 trillion.* Federal budget in 2012 was 3.8 trillion. We have a spending problem. You can't tell me that at the height of the Bush years, we were living frugally. Meanwhile, revenue went from 2.4 trillion to 2.6 trillion.

* Note that Bush cheated and had $115 billion in emergency appropriations. But still.

So cut the military budget severely, convert from the expensive patchwork healthcare system to a single-payer or socialized system and nationalize or break up the big banks and end all bank supports. Boom, budgetary "problem" solved by addressing the places that public economics in the US are really out of whack.


From 2007 to 2012...

Social Security $586.1 billion -> $778.574 billion
Defense $548.8 billion -> $716.300 billion
Medicare $394.5 billion -> $484.486 billion
Unemployment/welfare $294.0 billion -> $579.578 billion
medicaid/health $276.4 billion -> $361.625 billion

So... here is what I don't get. On all health related stuff, we're spending $2700 per American in 2012. On SS/welfare, we are paying $4335 per American in 2012. For that kind of cash, we SHOULD get a fully socialized healthcare system, and full welfare coverage. I don't get where the money is going... (actually I do, lining the pockets of the rich). I mean, let's say 1/4 of the entire adult population over 18 needs welfare. We could afford to give every single one of them $23,120. You read that right. The money is there. It's just apparently getting lost somewhere in the bureaucracy. THIS is the problem.
 
2013-03-16 03:35:08 AM

m00: From 2007 to 2012...

Social Security $586.1 billion -> $778.574 billion
Defense $548.8 billion -> $716.300 billion
Medicare $394.5 billion -> $484.486 billion
Unemployment/welfare $294.0 billion -> $579.578 billion
medicaid/health $276.4 billion -> $361.625 billion

So... here is what I don't get. On all health related stuff, we're spending $2700 per American in 2012. On SS/welfare, we are paying $4335 per American in 2012. For that kind of cash, we SHOULD get a fully socialized healthcare system, and full welfare coverage. I don't get where the money is going... (actually I do, lining the pockets of the rich). I mean, let's say 1/4 of the entire adult population over 18 needs welfare. We could afford to give every single one of them $23,120. You read that right. The money is there. It's just apparently getting lost somewhere in the bureaucracy. THIS is the problem.


No shiat. Take Medicare; this is what I mean by "expensive patchwork". The American healthcare system is a massive for-profit clusterfark, and because the rightists in government are crooked capitalist fundamentalists, the centrists are clueless and spineless and there's no left wing at all, public healthcare is aligned specifically as a rent-seeking scheme for that aforementioned for-profit clusterfark. The Medicare prescription drug benefit/part D is a good one: It's subsidized private prescription insurance! It is literally a scheme to funnel public money into private coffers hidden behind the Medicare brand and is literally the worst possible way to implement that sort of drug benefit.

Also, don't say SS/welfare. There is no more welfare system in this country and you have the Clinton administration to thank for that. As far as social security goes, its growth is in keeping with an aging population; given cost of living in the US, the payouts are perfectly reasonable for the covered population. What SHOULD be done is to remove the cap on social security taxes.
 
2013-03-16 06:41:14 AM

themindiswatching: somedude210: I am glad to hear that Boehner is coming around though. I think we may have a shot of some deal (albeit mediocre) if he stops listening to Cantor

Doesn't matter who he listens to. Tea Party is going to vote no unless it screws over poor people.


I don't want the right wing to "come around" in this. I really, really don't. I don't want anything to happen that would allow them the slightest chance of rehabilitating themselves in the eyes of most Americans. What I want is for the GOP, the Tea Party, and the right wing in general to keep digger that hole deeper and deeper until they can't ever find a way to climb out. I'm personally willing to put up with some fiscal pain if it will sound the death knell for those on the far right as an organized political front. I want the American electorate to view them the way they view the Aryan Nation and the John Birch Society -- as a pathological tiny minority in which membership automatically makes you persona non grata among civilized people.
 
2013-03-16 06:53:34 AM
The funny part is that history suggests Obama will be owning this, not Congress.

And by history, I mean pop history. Hell, pop culture is all the general population knows anymore... and do you think they're going to blame hundreds of people in Congress? Or one black guy in a white house?
 
2013-03-16 09:10:22 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: m00: From 2007 to 2012...

Social Security $586.1 billion -> $778.574 billion
Defense $548.8 billion -> $716.300 billion
Medicare $394.5 billion -> $484.486 billion
Unemployment/welfare $294.0 billion -> $579.578 billion
medicaid/health $276.4 billion -> $361.625 billion

So... here is what I don't get. On all health related stuff, we're spending $2700 per American in 2012. On SS/welfare, we are paying $4335 per American in 2012. For that kind of cash, we SHOULD get a fully socialized healthcare system, and full welfare coverage. I don't get where the money is going... (actually I do, lining the pockets of the rich). I mean, let's say 1/4 of the entire adult population over 18 needs welfare. We could afford to give every single one of them $23,120. You read that right. The money is there. It's just apparently getting lost somewhere in the bureaucracy. THIS is the problem.

No shiat. Take Medicare; this is what I mean by "expensive patchwork". The American healthcare system is a massive for-profit clusterfark, and because the rightists in government are crooked capitalist fundamentalists, the centrists are clueless and spineless and there's no left wing at all, public healthcare is aligned specifically as a rent-seeking scheme for that aforementioned for-profit clusterfark. The Medicare prescription drug benefit/part D is a good one: It's subsidized private prescription insurance! It is literally a scheme to funnel public money into private coffers hidden behind the Medicare brand and is literally the worst possible way to implement that sort of drug benefit.

Also, don't say SS/welfare. There is no more welfare system in this country and you have the Clinton administration to thank for that. As far as social security goes, its growth is in keeping with an aging population; given cost of living in the US, the payouts are perfectly reasonable for the covered population. What SHOULD be done is to remove the cap on social security taxes.


There most certainly is still a welfare system. Exemptions to the time limits are incredibly easy to get.
 
2013-03-16 11:38:15 AM

m00: The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.


As has been stated repeatedly, that's 2.4% of the total budget, but the cuts are restricted to discretionary spending which only constitutes 31% of the budget.  So as a percentage of discretionary spending, the cuts are closer to 7.7% if my math is correct.
 
m00
2013-03-16 11:48:04 AM

Mentat: m00: The sequester is like what... 2.4% of the budget? That's right, we can't find 2.4% of the budget to cut. The proposed increases from last year are larger than 2.4%. We're really, really screwed. Apparently, America will shut down if we don't increase our budget by a large amount from year-to-year.

Fark all politicians.

As has been stated repeatedly, that's 2.4% of the total budget, but the cuts are restricted to discretionary spending which only constitutes 31% of the budget.  So as a percentage of discretionary spending, the cuts are closer to 7.7% if my math is correct.


language games. It's like calling a reduction to a proposed increase a "spending cut." sure, politicians can restrict the sequester so that it affects 100% of one program. then they will go on TV and say "we need to cut 100% of the budget!!!! this is impossible!!!"
 
2013-03-16 12:01:22 PM

Crazy Lee: studs up The left derp is so strong in this thread you'd think Krugman had a million sock puppets. Oh, and yeah, Latvia says "suck my balls, Paul. Wrong again asshole".

So, how did Krugman vote in Congress on 85bil. of cuts, effected over 7 months.


I'm pretty sure the post you replied to was actually a mispost meant for the thread about Paul Krugman and Latvia.
 
2013-03-16 01:39:17 PM
Krieghund I'm pretty sure the post you replied to was actually a mispost meant for the thread about Paul Krugman and Latvia.

Yeah, was in a hurry and had been spending the day running the audio of the JPmorgan vs. The Levin while I worked. Pretty much cued on the trollish intent of post rather than the content.

/Rose to the `bait'
//have to remember to take my medication...
 
2013-03-17 04:29:33 AM
Hmm... what's the total amount of money the sequester is supposed to save? What's the total cost of running the Theatre of Security Administration? I may see a very easy solution...
 
2013-03-17 09:43:32 AM
According to democrat representatives we are all now unemployed as the sequester cost the US 170 million jobs
 
Displayed 26 of 76 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report