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)   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  
•       •       •

1978 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2013 at 6:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-15 03:17:50 PM  
That's the general idea. It's supposed to suck harder than your mom at a frat party.

It's part of the deal that was struck in August 2011 that would have required Congress to come up with a deal to avoid it by 1 Jan of this year (and that date was punted to 1 Mar), with the plan being that they would come up with a deal in order to avoid the sequester in much the same way one would avoid driving off the Grand Canyon by not driving anywhere in the state of Arizona.

Unfortunately, this meant that the Republicans would have had to agree with president Obama on something less mundane than hamburger toppings, so they deliberately and maliciously drove the country off of a cliff just because they hate the guy who said they shouldn't more than they love America.
 
2013-03-15 03:28:19 PM  
TPM has a nice article of a few nice quotes from Republicans admitting that the sequester is really actually hurting, but still think the consequences are all for political play.
 
2013-03-15 03:49:25 PM  

King Something: That's the general idea. It's supposed to suck harder than your mom at a frat party.

It's part of the deal that was struck in August 2011 that would have required Congress to come up with a deal to avoid it by 1 Jan of this year (and that date was punted to 1 Mar), with the plan being that they would come up with a deal in order to avoid the sequester in much the same way one would avoid driving off the Grand Canyon by not driving anywhere in the state of Arizona.

Unfortunately, this meant that the Republicans would have had to agree with president Obama on something less mundane than hamburger toppings, so they deliberately and maliciously drove the country off of a cliff just because they hate the guy who said they shouldn't more than they love America.


It is punishment for his reelection.

Conservatives feel that their ideology is fading. Like a crazed animal it is fighting back desperately.

It is my opinion that things have become so unbalanced that a new equilibrium must be formed. In order for a new equilibrium to be made a catastrophic even must happen. I dont think anything besides a civil war will set this new equilibrium.
 
2013-03-15 04:27:01 PM  

GAT_00: TPM has a nice article of a few nice quotes from Republicans admitting that the sequester is really actually hurting, but still think the consequences are all for political play.


yes, I know. I tried to submit that one about how they're having buyer's remorse over it. I was slapped down by the admin gods

Maybe I'll have better luck with this one
 
2013-03-15 04:27:58 PM  

cman: King Something: That's the general idea. It's supposed to suck harder than your mom at a frat party.

It's part of the deal that was struck in August 2011 that would have required Congress to come up with a deal to avoid it by 1 Jan of this year (and that date was punted to 1 Mar), with the plan being that they would come up with a deal in order to avoid the sequester in much the same way one would avoid driving off the Grand Canyon by not driving anywhere in the state of Arizona.

Unfortunately, this meant that the Republicans would have had to agree with president Obama on something less mundane than hamburger toppings, so they deliberately and maliciously drove the country off of a cliff just because they hate the guy who said they shouldn't more than they love America.

It is punishment for his reelection.

Conservatives feel that their ideology is fading. Like a crazed animal it is fighting back desperately.

It is my opinion that things have become so unbalanced that a new equilibrium must be formed. In order for a new equilibrium to be made a catastrophic even must happen. I dont think anything besides a civil war will set this new equilibrium.


A speaker at the CPAC stated he felt that all the party needed was a charismatic leader to win the White House and the GOP would be fine. I don't have an answer. I wish I had some insight into this. These 2 parties have survived in the past by shifting and evolving. The GOP seem bent on not doing this- but they are showing signs of change.
 
2013-03-15 04:30:51 PM  

cman: Conservatives feel that their ideology is fading. Like a crazed animal it is fighting back desperately.


That's what I've been saying for this past week (and been hounded for it. Seriously? I'm a Fark Independent? Really?)

The GOP has 2 things left in the budget fight to defend: Tax cuts/levels and defense. That's it. Democrats have just about everything else. Both sides have more or less agreed to defense cuts (Paul Ryan's special math notwithstanding) so that leaves the tax cuts/revenues debate. Which is pissing off the Teapartiers because they need something to get pissy about and the establishment GOP because they've got nothing left.

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
 
2013-03-15 05:25:19 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-15 06:02:41 PM  

King Something: agree with president Obama on something less mundane than hamburger toppings


ELITIST SPICY MUSTARD !?!?!?!?!
 
2013-03-15 06:03:42 PM  

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.


So, most of the tea party itself then.
 
2013-03-15 06:09:01 PM  
Who are these idiotic 30-40+% of people who don't think cutting money from a program will hurt its ability to function?  I mean, you can be against the goal of the program, that's fine.  But even then, you have to admit it can do more with more money.  What is there to even argue about on that?

How are we ever going to fix our political system when these idiots are voting?
 
2013-03-15 06:12:26 PM  
Makes you long for the good ol' days when both parties would hammer out some bogus compromise that did little more than make it rain in certain congressional districts.
 
2013-03-15 06:12:32 PM  

Who thinks it bites? Ryan included the sequester in his budget, he loves it so much.


Did I say he kept it?  I meant he changed it to be even more nightmarish.



He keeps the sequester -- a $1 trillion guillotine to non-defense and defense spending. But his breakdown of spending pushes virtually all of those cuts into non-defense categories. In other words, everything in our discretionary budget -- scientific research, housing, international relations, education, public safety, public health, environmental protection, job training -- doesn't just get a sequester. It gets a double-sequester! Plus another $250 billion in cuts, under the Ryan budget. Win the future.
 
2013-03-15 06:13:16 PM  

Emposter: Who are these idiotic 30-40+% of people who don't think cutting money from a program will hurt its ability to function?  I mean, you can be against the goal of the program, that's fine.  But even then, you have to admit it can do more with more money.  What is there to even argue about on that?

How are we ever going to fix our political system when these idiots are voting?


Because it accomplishes their goal.

If you dont like a program there is a good chance that you will never get enough backers to remove it. However, it is rather easy cutting budgets. When the budgets are cut, the programs fail, and those in Washington can hold it up saying that it isnt worth the money because it aint doing anything.

Smart thinking indeed
 
2013-03-15 06:14:18 PM  

cman: It is punishment for his reelection.

Conservatives feel that their ideology is fading. Like a crazed animal it is fighting back desperately.


The big problem is that the GOP has been steadily moving right for the past several decades, and it's been dragging the "center" and the Democrats with it. Now the GOP finds itself in a position where if they move anywhere closer to "center", they'll be further left than the Democrats. So they've got no where to go.
 
2013-03-15 06:16:50 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Who thinks it bites? Ryan included the sequester in his budget, he loves it so much.
Did I say he kept it?  I meant he changed it to be even more nightmarish.

He keeps the sequester -- a $1 trillion guillotine to non-defense and defense spending. But his breakdown of spending pushes virtually all of those cuts into non-defense categories. In other words, everything in our discretionary budget -- scientific research, housing, international relations, education, public safety, public health, environmental protection, job training -- doesn't just get a sequester. It gets a double-sequester! Plus another $250 billion in cuts, under the Ryan budget. Win the future.


Ryan isn't an idiot (he just plays one on TV).  He knows his budget won't pass...which is why it's such a great opportunity to beef up his "conservative" rep with the wingnut voter base by proposing insane nonsense when he knows no one will call his bluff.
 
2013-03-15 06:17:54 PM  

cman: Emposter: Who are these idiotic 30-40+% of people who don't think cutting money from a program will hurt its ability to function?  I mean, you can be against the goal of the program, that's fine.  But even then, you have to admit it can do more with more money.  What is there to even argue about on that?

How are we ever going to fix our political system when these idiots are voting?

Because it accomplishes their goal.

If you dont like a program there is a good chance that you will never get enough backers to remove it. However, it is rather easy cutting budgets. When the budgets are cut, the programs fail, and those in Washington can hold it up saying that it isnt worth the money because it aint doing anything.

Smart thinking indeed


Not sure what any of that has to do with my post.
 
2013-03-15 06:21:56 PM  
Emposter: Not sure what any of that has to do with my post.

It explained the mechanism with which conservatives are trying to shut down popular programs (especially those that help poor people).  They can't come out and SAY they're against poor mothers getting money to feed their kids, because they're too cowardly.  So instead they just defund everything and blame it on Obama.
 
2013-03-15 06:22:58 PM  
Do I really have to be the first?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-15 06:22:58 PM  
the sequster bites (come on frenchie)
the poodle chews it

home.gwi.net

Snap it!

not a speck of cereal


 
2013-03-15 06:24:17 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Emposter: Not sure what any of that has to do with my post.

It explained the mechanism with which conservatives are trying to shut down popular programs (especially those that help poor people).  They can't come out and SAY they're against poor mothers getting money to feed their kids, because they're too cowardly.  So instead they just defund everything and blame it on Obama.


Yes, I'm well aware of that, but it still has nothing to do with my post.
 
2013-03-15 06:26:46 PM  
Remember a few weeks ago when GOP talking heads were running around claiming Obama was gloom-and-dooming the effects of the sequester?  "He's just doing it for politics", they pretty much said.  So now the effects are being felt... and guess what?  They suck.  And it's only a couple weeks into the sequester.  Just wait...
 
2013-03-15 06:39:15 PM  

Aquapope: Remember a few weeks ago when GOP talking heads were running around claiming Obama was gloom-and-dooming the effects of the sequester?  "He's just doing it for politics", they pretty much said.  So now the effects are being felt... and guess what?  They suck.  And it's only a couple weeks into the sequester.  Just wait...


I liked the fark independents who came along on the first day after the bill was signed, saying, See?! No big deal!

Morons.
 
2013-03-15 06:57:29 PM  
The sequester happened?  Didn't notice.
 
2013-03-15 07:00:08 PM  
My best friend, who is a veteran and now in the national guard, is 20 hours away from finishing his degree. He'd be the first person in his family to graduate college.

He was just informed that his educational benefits are being cut as part of the sequester and that he'll be unable to attend school next semester if this isn't remedied.

Personal anecdote of just how much this sucks and just how many people this is hurting for no goddamn reason.
 
2013-03-15 07:06:43 PM  

Evil High Priest: Morons.


Exactly!:

Saiga410: The sequester happened?  Didn't notice.

 
2013-03-15 07:15:26 PM  

Saiga410: The sequester happened?  Didn't notice.


It must not be happening if it doesn't affect you.
 
2013-03-15 07:22:06 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Saiga410: The sequester happened?  Didn't notice.

It must not be happening if it doesn't affect you.


Isn't that the foundation of GOP thought?
 
2013-03-15 07:24:03 PM  
cman:

However, it is rather easy cutting budgets. 

Yeah, this severe/draconian 2% reduction was a snap.
 
2013-03-15 07:26:35 PM  

Summoner101: Soup4Bonnie: Saiga410: The sequester happened?  Didn't notice.

It must not be happening if it doesn't affect you.

Isn't that the foundation of GOP thought?


See: Portman, Rob
 
2013-03-15 07:31:11 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: cman:

However, it is rather easy cutting budgets. 

Yeah, this severe/draconian 2% reduction was a snap.


2% reduction in the projected increase.
 
2013-03-15 07:37:22 PM  
Emposter

Who are these idiotic 30-40+% of people who don't think cutting money from a program will hurt its ability to function?

Well, BHO for one.

Link
 
2013-03-15 07:38:36 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: It must not be happening if it doesn't affect you.


This is exactly how conservatives and other self-centered people think. It's precisely why Senator Rob Portman suddenly started supporting gay rights -- only because his son came out as gay -- and why he's being eaten alive by his fellow conservatives.
 
2013-03-15 07:48:29 PM  

Genevieve Marie: My best friend, who is a veteran and now in the national guard, is 20 hours away from finishing his degree. He'd be the first person in his family to graduate college.

He was just informed that his educational benefits are being cut as part of the sequester and that he'll be unable to attend school next semester if this isn't remedied.

Personal anecdote of just how much this sucks and just how many people this is hurting for no goddamn reason.


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.

The Marine Corps was the first to cut funding fort Tuition Assistance when the sequestration hit, but the Army and apparently now the national guard have as well.  It sucks (as somone who has used $7,000 worth of TA funding over the course of my enlistment) but if it is a choice between buying ammunition and fuel for training, or funding TA, it makes sense that it will have to go as one of the first cuts.

This does not take away from how stupid and shortsighted the sequestration is, I just figured I should clarify since I have had to explain this to a number of highly beligerent Marines. (none of whom actually ever used it)

I work with quite a few federal workers.  Many of them are in on saturday and sunday trying to keep up with their workloads.  Many of them have recieved letters informing them that they will be required to stay home during workdays later on this year.  Their work is the kind that does not change based on the number of people available to do it.  There is going to be a net decrease in national security because of the sequestration.
 
2013-03-15 07:51:10 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-15 08:01:33 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Well, BHO for one.

Link


Nowhere in your link does it say "BHO", a.k.a., the President, believes that cutting 30-40% of a program will not hurt its ability to function.

Thanks for sharing the shiat that is falling out of Rush Limbaugh's orifice with the class, though.  We are all dumber for it.
 
2013-03-15 08:18:40 PM  
And what they discovered was that the president, in his 2013 budget, had proposed to cut $58 million from the program.  The administration claimed that the money could be saved through greater efficiencies and would not involve any reductions in vaccinations. "
 
2013-03-15 08:18:48 PM  

cman: King Something: That's the general idea. It's supposed to suck harder than your mom at a frat party.

It's part of the deal that was struck in August 2011 that would have required Congress to come up with a deal to avoid it by 1 Jan of this year (and that date was punted to 1 Mar), with the plan being that they would come up with a deal in order to avoid the sequester in much the same way one would avoid driving off the Grand Canyon by not driving anywhere in the state of Arizona.

Unfortunately, this meant that the Republicans would have had to agree with president Obama on something less mundane than hamburger toppings, so they deliberately and maliciously drove the country off of a cliff just because they hate the guy who said they shouldn't more than they love America.

It is punishment for his reelection.

Conservatives feel that their ideology is fading. Like a crazed animal it is fighting back desperately.

It is my opinion that things have become so unbalanced that a new equilibrium must be formed. In order for a new equilibrium to be made a catastrophic even must happen. I dont think anything besides a civil war will set this new equilibrium.


To quote Hank McCoy: "I feel for you, Dr. Pym, the dinosaur could not see the meteor coming."
 
2013-03-15 08:28:13 PM  
What I find interesting is that only 42% of Republicans support cutting Medicaid for the poor, and only 44% support raising the minimum Medicare age from 65 to 67.

If even the base isn't supporting these cuts, why is the party leadership pushing them so hard?
 
2013-03-15 08:30:17 PM  

OSULugan: cman: It is punishment for his reelection.

Conservatives feel that their ideology is fading. Like a crazed animal it is fighting back desperately.

The big problem is that the GOP has been steadily moving right for the past several decades, and it's been dragging the "center" and the Democrats with it. Now the GOP finds itself in a position where if they move anywhere closer to "center", they'll be further left than the Democrats. So they've got no where to go.


Enter, libertarians.
 
2013-03-15 08:38:15 PM  

Genevieve Marie: 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.


Ouch, that is a truly unfortunate situation.  They took our TA away last year for about 3 weeks before pushback caused it to be re-funded, so this was not a huge shock to us, but I am guessing this blindsided your friend.  (Your friend is also a perfect example of why it is a  really bad ideato use your GI bill for less than a full courseload.)
 
2013-03-15 08:41:48 PM  
Bussing home for the weekend. Fence with you later, Zeb.
 
2013-03-15 08:55:10 PM  
Compared to it being what? A party with balloons and cake?

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.
 
2013-03-15 09:04:15 PM  
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".
 
2013-03-15 09:21:31 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Zeb Hesselgresser: Well, BHO for one.

Link

Nowhere in your link does it say "BHO", a.k.a., the President, believes that cutting 30-40% of a program will not hurt its ability to function.

Thanks for sharing the shiat that is falling out of Rush Limbaugh's orifice with the class, though.  We are all dumber for it.


Rush is in Congress?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cKbMhr-cfh8
 
2013-03-15 09:21:51 PM  

GAT_00: TPM has a nice article of a few nice quotes from Republicans admitting that the sequester is really actually hurting, but still think the consequences are all for political play.


I was going to submit that article with a headline about emo Republicans cutting themselves, but I was a bad kitty and things were all farked up.
 
2013-03-15 09:57:04 PM  

The WindowLicker: Genevieve Marie: 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.

Ouch, that is a truly unfortunate situation.  They took our TA away last year for about 3 weeks before pushback caused it to be re-funded, so this was not a huge shock to us, but I am guessing this blindsided your friend.  (Your friend is also a perfect example of why it is a  really bad ideato use your GI bill for less than a full courseload.)


He actually did take full time hours the entire time, but right at full time and not above it. He also switched majors at one point, which added one semester to the time it was going to take him to graduate, which is pretty standard for a lot of college students.

It just sucks. All around sucks. He's been working his ass off for the last four years genuinely trying to pull off this bootstraps thing, and right now that effort is being derailed by jackass political  shenanigans.

I just hope this is resolved in time for him to enroll next semester.
 
2013-03-15 09:58:58 PM  
Unemployment would be down around 6.8% if it weren't for public sector job losses due to the economic collapse. but hey Wall st is doing just fine. The top 01% is doing better than ever. So suck it pleebs and pay our bills while we live large.
 
2013-03-15 10:42:36 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-15 10:58:08 PM  
Remember that submarine that was set on fire?  They can't repair it because of sequestration.
 
2013-03-15 10:59:10 PM  
no surprise.
when the public hears that the sequester means that there are no more White House tours they think that the government is a well run machine and that is the only place to save money.

Oh, and of course we will have longer TSA line at "I uhhh, I want to say....Chicago", unsafe food and teachers being fired.
 
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 76 of 76 comments

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