Think the GOP will go through with it? It didn't work out to well for them when they tried it against Clinton, not sure why it would be different this time around.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/02/the_coming_government_shutdown_the_march_1_sequestration_deadline_is_fake.html
Quote
Forget Sequestration
The real deadline for government shutdown is March 27.
By Matthew Yglesias|Posted Friday, Feb. 22, 2013, at 3:36 PM
Sequestration—it's the talk of Washington. Republicans have press releases about it. Democrats have press releases about it. Media outlets are doing polls about who's to blame, and cranking out Explainer pieces to keep you informed.
But the truth is that this is by far the most boring budget crisis of the Obama years, and to call the political posturing around it kabuki is an insult to a historic Japanese theatrical tradition. Unlike the last couple of debt ceiling fights, the fiscal cliff, the 2010 lame duck, or even the underrated 2012 payroll tax holiday extension, there's no drama here because the parties aren't actually negotiating. They're not even pretending to negotiate. They're just talking.
That's because the sequester doesn't really matter.
When the sequester hits on March 1, nothing much happens. The cuts take effect, but agencies have been expecting them for months and are prepared to slow down their pace of outlays. The legislation creating the sequester back in 2011 deliberately minimized the amount of discretion that agency managers have over how to allocate cuts. But even an across-the-board cut applied to every program doesn't imply an exact equal reduction in the amount of spending each and every day or even week. For a few weeks, any halfway competent agency is going to be able to keep things running more or less as they have been recently. Big shortfalls in services would only show up later down the road.
And the reason it doesn't matter that much is that a much bigger deadline looms. On March 27 the Continuing Resolution that funds the overall discretionary operations of the federal government runs out.
When that happens, it's lights out—quite literally. There are some exceptions for emergency personnel and entitlement programs (think Medicare) keep functioning, but when the CR expires, the government shuts down. All "non-essential" federal employees are put on furlough, and programs simply stop functioning. The National Parks will close down, and the Centers for Disease Control won't track infections. Visa and passport applications won't be processed. Nor will new applications for disability benefits. Regulatory agencies will take a break.
A government shutdown's something we haven't seen since Jan. 6, 1996, when then-President Bill Clinton and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich patched up their budget disagreements. It looked very close to happening back in 2011 when flush-with-victory House Republicans initially seemed intent on pressing demands on the Obama administration that the president would never accept.
Ultimately, John Boehner and his troops agreed to settle for less than they'd set out to obtain. That meant a $39 billion, one-year cut in discretionary spending, but no "policy riders" on abortion, no defunding of NPR, etc. Team GOP pocketed that win, deciding they could come back for more when the national debt was scheduled to run up against its statutory limit in summer 2011. That debt ceiling crisis did, indeed, result in substantial additional spending cuts.
The 2013 calendar is reversed. The debt ceiling fight happened early in the year, and the Obama administration—by standing firm and refusing to negotiate—got through it without giving up anything. Just a few weeks earlier they'd won substantial tax increases as part of the fiscal cliff drama. That's left Republicans craving a win, and craving a fight.
The bad news is that this means the odds of a government shutdown are pretty high. The good news is that the tough negotiations that'll be needed to either avert or else end a government shutdown provide ample opportunity to resolve the problems associated with the sequester. For starters, however the appropriations dispute is resolved, it'll end up superseding sequestration in terms of how much money is spent overall.
The other aspect of sequestration is that it doesn't just cut spending; it cuts it in a very inflexible way. Agencies are supposed to cut each "activity" they undertake by the same amount rather than setting priorities. When tried in the past, this has led to such absurdities as a mandate to "scrape 5 percent less poop" off each navigational buoy in the Chesapeake Bay. It works that way specifically because sequestration was supposed be onerous, in order to encourage Congress to agree on deficit reduction. But Congress could easily grant agencies more flexibility about how to allocate the cuts. Once an agreement is reached on spending levels, sticking with inflexibility is pointless and won't give either side any leverage for anything.
There's no guarantee that Congress will do the right thing and let agencies allocate their money more rationally, but there's no reason not to. There will be one more month of posturing. March 27 is the real deadline, not March 1.
You know if someone well known hasn't already done this, there needs to be a song 'American Fail' :cool:
One of the most bleak lines I've read recently was a GOP Senate aide quoted in Politico as saying that they may need a shutdown just so some House Republicans can get it out of their system :bleeding:
I expect they'll rattle their sabers to look good for their supporters and then legislate it away for about two years.
Two years?? More like 2 months.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
One of the most bleak lines I've read recently was a GOP Senate aide quoted in Politico as saying that they may need a shutdown just so some House Republicans can get it out of their system :bleeding:
That's probably pretty close to the truth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
One of the most bleak lines I've read recently was a GOP Senate aide quoted in Politico as saying that they may need a shutdown just so some House Republicans can get it out of their system :bleeding:
:lol:
Oh, it'll go down, alright.
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
You will never have to pay it back.
If the US stops buying things in China, the PCC will collapse.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
The problem is we have been doing things this way for 30 years. The debt crisis has been looming for awhile now, not sure why it is only the latest guy who gets the blame...oh and call me silly but doesn't Congress control things like the budget?
Anyway the plan seems pretty clear to me, we will tank the currency eventually to handle the debt. No paying back will ever be done seriously, if we were interested in being serious about the debt crisis we would have handled back in the 90s and early 2000's when we had the chance.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
The debt crisis has been looming for awhile now, not sure why it is only the latest guy who gets the blame
Excellent point.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
The problem is we have been doing things this way for 30 years. The debt crisis has been looming for awhile now, not sure why it is only the latest guy who gets the blame...oh and call me silly but doesn't Congress control things like the budget?
Anyway the plan seems pretty clear to me, we will tank the currency eventually to handle the debt. No paying back will ever be done seriously, if we were interested in being serious about the debt crisis we would have handled back in the 90s and early 2000's when we had the chance.
We seemed to be fairly on track in the late 90s. I know some of that was inflated revenues due to the dotcom boom but still.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:55:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
The debt crisis has been looming for awhile now, not sure why it is only the latest guy who gets the blame
Excellent point.
Now don't get me wrong I think Obama is a bad President, he is not exactly fighting to address the issue at all, but history suggests few of the others would have done so either.
My opinion is that right now the effort to stabilize and pay for the debt would be so politically painful (and therefore probably not politically possible) that one of two things are true:
1. The plan is to inflate our way out, a tried and true method to sustain irresponsible policies
2. The plan is to hope that somehow magical fairies of some sort intervene, like suddenly the US experiences a sustained period of outrageous economic growth and sweeps the problem away for everybody.
It would be wise to pencil in significant inflation IMO, it is the tool which will be used to deal with the debt.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-ask-52-000-share-national-debt-152005364--politics.html
QuoteFifty-two thousand dollars could, among other things, buy you NFL season tickets for nearly 67 years and groceries for seven years, and make for a hefty down payment on a house. So Republicans argue in a new infographic released by Speaker John Boehner's office on Wednesday morning, part of their effort to highlight Democratic spending amid the growing national debt.
According to the chart, if the $16 trillion national debt were divided among every man, woman and child, each person would receive $52,000—an amount Republicans are highlighting on Wednesday, the 1,400th day since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget.
President Barack Obama has been publicly pressuring House Republicans to raise taxes on the nation's wealthiest and some corporations as part of a budget deal. In the absence of a budget passed by Congress, federal agencies will face a sequester—across-the-board spending cuts—March 1.
Republicans issued a statement along with Wednesday's graphic calling on Democrats to do their part to avoid the sequester.
"Republicans voted twice to replace the president's sequester with smarter spending cuts and reforms. And—for the third year in a row—the House will pass a budget that promotes economic growth and addresses our debt crisis. Now we need Senate Democrats and President Obama to do the same," Republicans state on Boehner's website.
Republicans will be using the hashtags #1400days and #NoDemBudget on Twitter on Wednesday to promote their message.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speaker.gov%2Fsites%2Fspeaker.house.gov%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fspkr_node_full%2Fpublic%2F13-02-25_infographic_52k_final.jpg&hash=462f3837b2e8e287e2b2a4eae4044b10cfd01a99)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 27, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
We seemed to be fairly on track in the late 90s. I know some of that was inflated revenues due to the dotcom boom but still.
That combined with the end of the Cold War was a window we could have gotten everything back on track. I desperately wanted aggressive action on this front but we threw it away.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 11:50:54 AM
The problem is we have been doing things this way for 30 years. The debt crisis has been looming for awhile now, not sure why it is only the latest guy who gets the blame
Yes and no. We have been running deficits for a long, long time. But 8% deficits for 6 years running are unprecedented. Bush Jr., the textbook profligate president, ran deficits of 3-5% of GDP while GDP was growing at 3%. We're borrowing
half of the federal budget annually and not that many people seem to be concerned.
Quote...oh and call me silly but doesn't Congress control things like the budget?
That's a little beside the point. Both houses have to agree for a budget to pass. And Barry is flooding the airwaves telling everybody how calamitous it will be if the sequester goes through. The sequester which, if you remember, was a last minute compromise brokered by Joe Biden and was about half what the GOP House was asking for in terms of spending cuts and about half of the spending cuts that
Obama purportedly offered to Boehner in his heroic deficit reduction proposal.QuoteAnyway the plan seems pretty clear to me, we will tank the currency eventually to handle the debt. No paying back will ever be done seriously, if we were interested in being serious about the debt crisis we would have handled back in the 90s and early 2000's when we had the chance.
You're probably right. Either that or we default. We're on the path to being a banana republic. And no one seems to care.
Of course no one cares. Big Money has done a marvelous job of controlling the message.
Everyone knows the solution, no one is willing to pay the political price for it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2013, 01:17:36 PM
Of course no one cares. Big Money has done a marvelous job of controlling the message.
wut?
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
And it's unprecedented!
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
And it's unprecedented!
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
And it's unprecedented!
:lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2013, 02:44:12 PM
Super PACs.
Super PACs have had nothing to do with it. The only lobbying group that has touched the issue is AARP and their "don't touch my hard earned Social Security" ad campaigns.
I blame the mainstream media for buying into the gloom and doom hype about fiscal cliffs and sequesters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
And it's unprecedented!
:lol:
Yeah, it's almost as if we've heard someone say that before. Like maybe back in 2008?
Or 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 03:06:23 PM
Yeah, it's almost as if we've heard someone say that before. Like maybe back in 2008?
Ah that's an Obama quote eh?
Eh it just goes to show the BS around this issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
Super PACs have had nothing to do with it. The only lobbying group that has touched the issue is AARP and their "don't touch my hard earned Social Security" ad campaigns.
Wait, is somebody actually talking about cutting Social Security?
Quote from: Neil on February 27, 2013, 03:59:54 PM
Wait, is somebody actually talking about cutting Social Security?
Mostly in the form of flags run up poles. The GOP has asked for "entitlement reform," and Barry has made soft murmuring noises about raising the eligibility age.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2013, 04:07:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 27, 2013, 03:59:54 PM
Wait, is somebody actually talking about cutting Social Security?
Mostly in the form of flags run up poles. The GOP has asked for "entitlement reform," and Barry has made soft murmuring noises about raising the eligibility age.
Well we have to raise the eligibility age. It is the only way to keep it solvent. Medicare, on the other hand, cannot be rescued.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2013, 04:07:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 27, 2013, 03:59:54 PM
Wait, is somebody actually talking about cutting Social Security?
Mostly in the form of flags run up poles. The GOP has asked for "entitlement reform," and Barry has made soft murmuring noises about raising the eligibility age.
I guess that's the best concession that Obama is in fact open to making some changes anyone is going to get from you. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 04:10:56 PM
Medicare, on the other hand, cannot be rescued.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it can be rescued by higher taxes and benefit cuts.
There is no alternative. The private market will not provide affordable health insurance to sick old people. Only the government can do it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 04:10:56 PM
Well we have to raise the eligibility age. It is the only way to keep it solvent. Medicare, on the other hand, cannot be rescued.
There are other ways. Increase FICA. Means test it.
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 27, 2013, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
The problem is, is that the way Obama has done it over the last four years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt so that we now have over $16 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $52,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.
And it's unprecedented!
:lol:
Yeah, it's almost as if we've heard someone say that before. Like maybe back in 2008?
I was thinking more like 1988.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2013, 04:23:22 PM
I guess that's the best concession that Obama is in fact open to making some changes anyone is going to get from you. :lol:
Not sure what it is I'm conceding, and not sure what you mean by Obama being "open to making some changes." Does that mean he hasn't threatened a veto?
Some White House flunky was on CNN the other day talking about the president's counterproposal to the sequester. The Wolfman pressed the dude hard on what other spending cuts were in the proposal to take the place of the $85 billion in sequester cuts, and the best he could come up with is $3 billion in Farm Bill reduction.
I read an article a while back, think it was the NYT, talking about how the mirror image of Boehner's issue with raising taxes and the GOP rank and file is Obama's problem with cutting Social Security or Medicare and the Democratic rank and file.
And frankly Obama has never shown much interest in cutting anything. Listen to his speeches about the calamitous sequester. Every dollar of federal spending is precious to him.
Lolz http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2
Quote from: derspiess on February 27, 2013, 08:10:36 PM
Lolz http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2
Hilarious.
Lemme guess, it was Bill Casey.
Will the sequester cause DC real estate prices to plummet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2013, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 27, 2013, 04:23:22 PM
I guess that's the best concession that Obama is in fact open to making some changes anyone is going to get from you. :lol:
Not sure what it is I'm conceding, and not sure what you mean by Obama being "open to making some changes." Does that mean he hasn't threatened a veto?
Some White House flunky was on CNN the other day talking about the president's counterproposal to the sequester. The Wolfman pressed the dude hard on what other spending cuts were in the proposal to take the place of the $85 billion in sequester cuts, and the best he could come up with is $3 billion in Farm Bill reduction.
I read an article a while back, think it was the NYT, talking about how the mirror image of Boehner's issue with raising taxes and the GOP rank and file is Obama's problem with cutting Social Security or Medicare and the Democratic rank and file.
And frankly Obama has never shown much interest in cutting anything. Listen to his speeches about the calamitous sequester. Every dollar of federal spending is precious to him.
It means he's willing to make spending cuts. He has said that right?
Again, what do you mean by willing? He hasn't put forth any proposals of his own, except for that $3 billion I mentioned. He hasn't agreed to of the GOP proposals.
If the point of all this is to highlight that Obama hasn't signed any "don't cut any spending" pledges Norquist-style, then you're right, he hasn't.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 27, 2013, 11:51:30 PM
Will the sequester cause DC real estate prices to plummet?
:D
Quote from: Fate on February 27, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 04:10:56 PM
Medicare, on the other hand, cannot be rescued.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it can be rescued by higher taxes and benefit cuts.
There is no alternative. The private market will not provide affordable health insurance to sick old people. Only the government can do it.
Yep. The private market is broken.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2013, 12:04:44 AM
Again, what do you mean by willing? He hasn't put forth any proposals of his own, except for that $3 billion I mentioned. He hasn't agreed to of the GOP proposals.
If the point of all this is to highlight that Obama hasn't signed any "don't cut any spending" pledges Norquist-style, then you're right, he hasn't.
By willing I mean has he said he would be willing to cut spending. That's a simple question, it can be answered yes or no.
Quote from: Fate on February 27, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2013, 04:10:56 PM
Medicare, on the other hand, cannot be rescued.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it can be rescued by higher taxes and benefit cuts.
There is no alternative. The private market will not provide affordable health insurance to sick old people. Only the government can do it.
I am not talking about alternatives I am just talking about feasibility and sustainability and I do not think the government can do it. If it can be rescued then great lets do so. The do nothing strategy and watching the slow motion train wreck is getting to be a dangerous luxury.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 12:29:06 AM
Yep. The private market is broken.
Which means it is really really going to suck when it falls apart.
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2013, 02:00:49 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 12:29:06 AM
Yep. The private market is broken.
Which means it is really really going to suck when it falls apart.
Stop hating Freedomness and Libertytude.
Lol, sequester, agencies having to trim everything they do rather than cut out where it makes most sense for them. Great idea, not.
Also, I think it's more of a cut in growth of spending, not an actual cut in the current budget. That's like you getting a 3% raise instead of a 5%. At least as I understand what's going on, which is difficult to figure out given all the hoopla around it.
Besides, it's 2% of the budget. 85 billion is practically a rounding error in a 3.6 trillion dollar budget! If they can't cut 2% of that size budget without using the lameness of the sequester setup, while also running a 1.4 trillion dollar yearly deficit, they might as well shut lights off and go home as it can only get worse given the incompetence.
I do enjoy seeing Democrats act as if this is as lean as the federal government could possibly ever be. Oh, and the White House threatening Bob Woodward is also pretty hilarious.
There have been hiring freezes in place for a while now in the agencies I deal with. Training programs stopped accepting applicants a while back. I guess they're expecting a dip in activity with some furloughs and layoffs followed by a return to normal a bit later. I wonder how much of it will not go back to the old normal though.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Oh, and the White House threatening Bob Woodward is also pretty hilarious.
The man's been threatened since 1972. He's used to it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Oh, and the White House threatening Bob Woodward is also pretty hilarious.
The man's been threatened since 1972. He's used to it.
Hey btw it sounds like your guy Biden has some additional home defense shotgun tips to share with us:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/gun-control-joe-biden-interview
QuoteI said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."
:lol:
WTF, Joe. God, I love that crazy coot.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 02:25:42 PM
QuoteI said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."
:lol:
Complete and total awesomeness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 02:30:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 02:25:42 PM
QuoteI said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."
:lol:
Complete and total awesomeness.
:D
"Who's there?"
"Candygram."
Can't wait until Shotgun Joe bags himself his first land shark.
He might get some birds if he follows his other advice and fires into the air from his balcony.
Wow, the sequester will be worse than I thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-d95SO_3g
I swear she said "Seacrestation" at least a couple times.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 02:19:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Oh, and the White House threatening Bob Woodward is also pretty hilarious.
The man's been threatened since 1972. He's used to it.
No drones* in 72. :tinfoil:
* of course there were, just that they were called RPVs and didn't end up winning those wars either.
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
COunter-offer by Senate?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
The president oddly started backtracking on his doom & gloom scenario today. He said the effects won't be felt immediately :D
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
The president oddly started backtracking on his doom & gloom scenario today. He said the effects won't be felt immediately :D
Of course... :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
So is the world ending now?
Yep. Slowly and inexorably.
Oh...you mean *metaphorically*. No :D
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
The president oddly started backtracking on his doom & gloom scenario today. He said the effects won't be felt immediately :D
I thought everybody understood the effects wouldn't be felt immediately. Only Wall Street could fuck shit up that bad.
The effect began to be felt a while back actually. They've been preparing for a while.
Meh, the market still closed above 14,000 today, so obviously the wealthy aren't worried about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 06:30:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
The president oddly started backtracking on his doom & gloom scenario today. He said the effects won't be felt immediately :D
I thought everybody understood the effects wouldn't be felt immediately. Only Wall Street could fuck shit up that bad.
No, in fact the community organizer in chief seemed to be pushing the opposite notion.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 06:30:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
The president oddly started backtracking on his doom & gloom scenario today. He said the effects won't be felt immediately :D
I thought everybody understood the effects wouldn't be felt immediately. Only Wall Street could fuck shit up that bad.
No, in fact the community organizer in chief seemed to be pushing the opposite notion.
I think he's pulling a "Romney" now... :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
the community organizer in chief
lol, really, derfetuss? That worked in his first year, but we're in Year V now. C'mon. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
the community organizer in chief
lol, really, derfetuss? That worked in his first year, but we're in Year V now. C'mon. :P
Derspeiss prefers failed businessmen as Presidents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
the community organizer in chief
lol, really, derfetuss? That worked in his first year, but we're in Year V now. C'mon. :P
Well I thought it was appropriate, given that the president has spent more time going around agitating than governing.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
the community organizer in chief
lol, really, derfetuss? That worked in his first year, but we're in Year V now. C'mon. :P
Derspeiss prefers failed businessmen as Presidents.
It'd be nice to at least have someone who doesn't view the private sector with contempt.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 08:33:20 PM
It'd be nice to at least have someone who doesn't view the private sector with contempt.
Maybe things would be different if it didn't try so hard to earn so much of it. :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
the community organizer in chief
lol, really, derfetuss? That worked in his first year, but we're in Year V now. C'mon. :P
Derspeiss prefers failed businessmen as Presidents.
It'd be nice to at least have someone who doesn't view the private sector with contempt.
They cant help themselves. They are Obama lovers. :)
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 08:33:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2013, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2013, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
the community organizer in chief
lol, really, derfetuss? That worked in his first year, but we're in Year V now. C'mon. :P
Derspeiss prefers failed businessmen as Presidents.
It'd be nice to at least have someone who doesn't view the private sector with contempt.
This would be more of an issue if they were actually held the private sector in contempt or they were running for CEO. Now it would be nice if Republicans wouldn't hold government in contempt, at least when they want to run it.
Hmm, turns out "shooting through the door" isn't very good advice. Who'd a'thunk it??
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door?vwo=2cn3
Too late. Just pumped 5 rounds through my back door.
BIDEN'S A MORON
I seem to recall one of the pro-gun people who testified in front of Congress used as an example of importance of guns protecting the home a woman who did this.
If Barack Obama wants a cleaner world and a richer America, he should allow natural-gas exports.
'In America gas sells for around $3.40 per million British thermal units (mBTU). In Europe it costs around $12. In gas-poor Asia, spot cargoes change hands for as much as $20 per mBTU. Since it costs roughly $5 per mBTU to liquefy the stuff, ship it and turn it back into gas, America could be making a fortune from gas exports. To the extent that such exports displaced dirty coal, they would also help curb global warming.'
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21572769-if-barack-obama-wants-cleaner-world-and-richer-america-he-should-allow-natural-gas
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20130302_LDP004_0.jpg&hash=213dda0253a005441c31393b70a46e9451b10640)
That's already going to happen. Obama doesn't have to allow it. LNG facilities are already in the pipeline. Putin hates it because we're going to break Gazprom's hold over the European energy market.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 04:11:52 AM
That's already going to happen. Obama doesn't have to allow it. LNG facilities are already in the pipeline. Putin hates it because we're going to break Gazprom's hold over the European energy market.
hurry up a bit!
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2013, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 27, 2013, 11:51:30 PM
Will the sequester cause DC real estate prices to plummet?
:D
I really think it's happening. A 2-bedroom townhouse's asking price I have been monitoring fell $15,000 in the past 10 days:
http://www.remax.com/realestatehomesforsale/13821claretct-chantilly-va-20151-gid400027424991.html
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 01, 2013, 04:11:52 AM
That's already going to happen. Obama doesn't have to allow it. LNG facilities are already in the pipeline. Putin hates it because we're going to break Gazprom's hold over the European energy market.
Good news for the Euros, I would think, to have another large supplier.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2013, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Well the House bill failed to pass the Senate. So is the world ending now?
The president oddly started backtracking on his doom & gloom scenario today. He said the effects won't be felt immediately :D
He's wrong, you'll see the immediate affects as drones patrolling over the US start falling from the sky because of seacrester.
Quote from: KRonn on March 01, 2013, 08:18:25 AM
He's wrong, you'll see the immediate affects as drones patrolling over the US start falling from the sky because of seacrester.
But I think it will be 2.59% fewer drones due to the unfortunate budget cuts.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2013, 06:50:59 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2013, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 27, 2013, 11:51:30 PM
Will the sequester cause DC real estate prices to plummet?
:D
I really think it's happening. A 2-bedroom townhouse's asking price I have been monitoring fell $15,000 in the past 10 days:
http://www.remax.com/realestatehomesforsale/13821claretct-chantilly-va-20151-gid400027424991.html
I'd guess it is more likely that they realized they wouldn't be able to get that price in this economy. Their initial ask was up 80% from what they purchased it at in '01. Also, they saw the one offer they had fall through before this drop.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13821-Claret-Ct-Chantilly-VA-20151/51786483_zpid/
http://news.yahoo.com/spending-cuts-due-ground-navys-blue-angels-flying-122828653.html
QuoteBlue Angels pilot Dave Tickle said he is focused on practicing maneuvers for an upcoming show in California instead of worrying about how federal spending cuts will threaten performances this year by the U.S. Navy's renowned flight demonstration squadron.
With $85 billion in automatic cuts due to take effect on Friday, millions of fans across the country will likely miss out on the precision flying team's thrilling shows this year.
Blue Angels shows scheduled in more than two dozen cities between April and September are expected to be canceled as part of the cuts, said the team's spokeswoman, Lieutenant Katie Kelly. Some shows featuring the Blue Angels already have been called off in the face of budget uncertainties.
The grounding would be a sentimental loss for fans but not as serious as other reductions to defense spending, which President Barack Obama said could threaten Navy readiness. The Defense Department said the cuts would slash ship and aircraft maintenance, curtail training and result in 22 days' unpaid leave for most of the Pentagon's 800,000 civilian employees.
Programs such as the Blue Angels would take a back seat to "making sure ships are seaworthy and planes are airworthy for the war fighters who are operating overseas," said Lieutenant John Supple, spokesman for the Chief of Naval Air Training in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The news has saddened longtime fans, disappointed city leaders and sparked an online petition to the White House to save the Blue Angels' season. About 1,200 people had signed as of Thursday.
"They're an American icon, and they really resonate in a military town," said Ashton Hayward, mayor of Pensacola, Florida, home to the naval air station where the Blue Angels are based.
Pensacola's Blue Angels beach show each July pumps an additional $2.5 million into the local economy, according to a 2012 study.
"People plan their annual family trips around the shows and the impact on business is phenomenal," Hayward said. "If the Blue Angels end, it's going to be a sad, sad day for not just us, but for millions of people all over the country."
SHOWS CALLED OFF
Air shows scheduled for May at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina, and for June in Indianapolis, already have been canceled, organizers and U.S. Air Force officials announced in recent weeks.
The Air Force said its Thunderbirds exhibition flying team also is expected to be grounded if the so-called sequestration cuts happen.
The budget cuts will affect cities from Seattle to North Kingstown, Rhode Island, where the Rhode Island National Guard Air Show draws thousands of visitors to the small town each year.
The city's Quonset Air Base closed in the 1970s, but a sense of military pride still runs deep. Losing the Blue Angels would deal a huge blow for the show in late June, said Elizabeth Dolan, North Kingstown's town council president.
"Everybody looks forward to when they come," she said. "They fly right up over my house, and it's amazing and emotional to watch."
The Blue Angels program began in 1946 and costs about $40 million a year. Cancelling the bulk of the performing season would save about $28 million, according to Navy officials.
Because of the timing of the cuts, the Angels will still perform in March at the El Centro Air Show in southern California and the Southernmost Air Spectacular show in Key West, Florida.
The 130-person team, which includes seven pilots, consists of members who have served in high-level tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should the budget cuts go into effect, the team would be reassigned until there is enough money for them to take to the skies again, Supple said.
Tickle, a 32-year-old from Birmingham, Alabama, said he was inspired to become an expert naval pilot after watching Blue Angels performances during family vacations to Pensacola when he was a child. He is now a lieutenant commander in the Navy and the Blue Angels' lead solo pilot.
"I remember looking up at these shining blue and gold precision aircraft and thinking, 'I want to do that.' It gave me a feeling of amazement and pride," he said.
This would be great news! Noisy ass planes! :)
More backtracking. Our quasi-socialist president admitted today the sequester won't be an apocalypse :D
Until he recommends that the government own the means of production I can't say he is a very good socialist.
Quote from: PDH on March 01, 2013, 08:36:25 PM
Until he recommends that the government own the means of production I can't say he is a very good socialist.
Here's to hoping :mmm:
Quote from: garbon on March 01, 2013, 09:50:10 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on March 01, 2013, 06:50:59 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 28, 2013, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on February 27, 2013, 11:51:30 PM
Will the sequester cause DC real estate prices to plummet?
:D
I really think it's happening. A 2-bedroom townhouse's asking price I have been monitoring fell $15,000 in the past 10 days:
http://www.remax.com/realestatehomesforsale/13821claretct-chantilly-va-20151-gid400027424991.html
I'd guess it is more likely that they realized they wouldn't be able to get that price in this economy. Their initial ask was up 80% from what they purchased it at in '01. Also, they saw the one offer they had fall through before this drop.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13821-Claret-Ct-Chantilly-VA-20151/51786483_zpid/
Well hopefully more offers fall thought for all these properties. ;)
Some economists predict that Virginia will enter a recession due to this sequester: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/us/politics/virginias-feast-on-us-funds-nears-an-end.html
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2013, 08:32:43 PM
More backtracking. Our quasi-socialist president admitted today the sequester won't be an apocalypse :D
When are you guys going to drop the whole socialism thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2013, 08:32:43 PM
More backtracking. Our quasi-socialist president admitted today the sequester won't be an apocalypse :D
When are you guys going to drop the whole socialism thing?
When is Obama going to drop the whole socialism thing? :o
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2013, 08:32:43 PM
More backtracking. Our quasi-socialist president admitted today the sequester won't be an apocalypse :D
When are you guys going to drop the whole socialism thing?
When it stops eliciting a response from you types :P
I'm just concerned about you. Delusions are sort of my bag, not yours.
The objection to the label socialist rests on one of two arguments.
The first is that there is some sort of litmus test for socialism, such as a preference for state ownership of all the means of production, that Obama does not meet. The problem with this one is we see in practice that there are all sorts of self-described socialists around the world who do not meet this test either.
The second is that since everyone believes in the socialization of at least a few public goods, such as national defense, police protection, and perhaps social spending on retirees, that while technically true, it's meaningless to single out Obama since we are all socialists. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the possibility of a difference of degree.
The honest objection to the applying the term socialism to Obama and his policies is not that it is inaccurate but rather that it carries a negative connotation in the US.
So then when the GOP formally asked the Democratic party to change it's name to the "Democratic Socialist Party" it should have offered to change it's own name to the "Republican Socialist Party" as well?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 04:15:14 PM
So then when the GOP formally asked the Democratic party to change it's name to the "Democratic Socialist Party" it should have offered to change it's own name to the "Republican Socialist Party" as well?
QuoteThe problem with this argument is that it ignores the possibility of a difference of degree.
Yeah, so should they have offered to change their name as well? After all they certainly to a socialist to a degree.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 04:29:02 PM
Yeah, so should they have offered to change their name as well? After all they certainly to a socialist to a degree.
QuoteThe problem with this argument is that it ignores the possibility of a difference of degree.
Fine. So all those nasty things some people said about Bush and the GOP being fascist during the Bush Presidency are warranted, right? I mean, conservatives are closer to those far right ideologies then Democrats, and fascism covers a great deal of ground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 04:11:51 PM
The honest objection to the applying the term socialism to Obama and his policies is not that it is inaccurate but rather that it carries a negative connotation in the US.
Yes. It carries the connotation of a Soviet style government....which is inaccurate and therefore that is a perfect and honest objection to using it. I mean not that it matters, they can call themselves Nazis for all I care just manage the freaking deficit. Oh and follow the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 04:36:42 PM
QuoteThe problem with this argument is that it ignores the possibility of a difference of degree.
You can basically use this to describe everybody as anything. How post-modern.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 04:48:29 PM
Fine. So all those nasty things some people said about Bush and the GOP being fascist during the Bush Presidency are warranted, right? I mean, conservatives are closer to those far right ideologies then Democrats, and fascism covers a great deal of ground.
Fascism doesn't cover very much ground. There have only been a handful of self-described fascist governments in history, and they were characterized by a set of traits that doesn't seem to me to be very accurate in describing Republican policies: Racial superiority, territorial expansion, subjugation or extermination of inferior peoples, nurturing of historical grudges, one party states, tight government control of the economy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 05:20:33 PM
There have only been a handful of self-described fascist governments in history, and they were characterized by a set of traits that doesn't seem to me to be very accurate in describing Republican policies: Racial superiority, territorial expansion, subjugation or extermination of inferior peoples, nurturing of historical grudges, one party states, tight government control of the economy.
I don't think those traits describe any of the fascist regimes very accurately except Nazi Germany :hmm: but to be fair the Fascists themselves had a hard time vocalizing what exactly their ideology was about.
The corporatism is pretty key I think you can call out both parties on that to some degree if you really want to split hairs. Granted that would be idiotic but perfectly reasonable in the standards you are describing. After all it is just a different in degrees.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2013, 05:20:16 PM
You can basically use this to describe everybody as anything. How post-modern.
My point specifically is that everyone
is not everything. Greens are greens because they want *more* environmental protection than others, not because they want absolute, total environmental protection. Libertarians are libertarian because they want *less* governmental intrusion, not because they want to return to a state of nature.
If you want to look at things in a modern western european context, then it isn't off the charts crazy to label Obama a socialist. Many of the center left parties are called socialists. For that matter, the Labor Party under Blair and Brown was a member of the Socialist International.
The issue though is that while those parties have kept their labels and associations from ~100+ years ago while they moved to the center, in the US the definitions haven't shifted. Socialism has a connection here of something like soviet communism. Calling Obama a socialist in the US is either off the charts crazy or deliberately misleading.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 05:20:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 04:48:29 PM
Fine. So all those nasty things some people said about Bush and the GOP being fascist during the Bush Presidency are warranted, right? I mean, conservatives are closer to those far right ideologies then Democrats, and fascism covers a great deal of ground.
Fascism doesn't cover very much ground. There have only been a handful of self-described fascist governments in history, and they were characterized by a set of traits that doesn't seem to me to be very accurate in describing Republican policies: Racial superiority, territorial expansion, subjugation or extermination of inferior peoples, nurturing of historical grudges, one party states, tight government control of the economy.
Well, that's not the most accurate list as you left out things like celebration of the military, anti-communism and opposition to socialism. In these things it is a few
degrees closer to the GOP then the Dems. And using the can of worms you opened, that should be enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
Well, that's not the most accurate list as you left out things like celebration of the military, anti-communism and opposition to socialism. In these things it is a few degrees closer to the GOP then the Dems. And using the can of worms you opened, that should be enough.
Fascists weren't opposed to socialism. Their economies were highly socialized. In that aspect Democrats are a few degrees closer than Republicans.
They killed the socialists. That's pretty fucking opposed.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 06:16:00 PM
They killed the socialists. That's pretty fucking opposed.
That's pretty fucking opposed to threats to their power. That's pretty not fucking opposed to socialism as a guiding economic philosophy.
You know that not all economic policies that aren't capitalism aren't socialism, right? The Fascists weren't socialist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
Well, that's not the most accurate list as you left out things like celebration of the military, anti-communism and opposition to socialism. In these things it is a few degrees closer to the GOP then the Dems. And using the can of worms you opened, that should be enough.
Fascists weren't opposed to socialism. Their economies were highly socialized. In that aspect Democrats are a few degrees closer than Republicans.
Fascists were corporatist, not really socialist. Unless there were fascist movements that believed in the workers' ownership of the means of production?
Quote from: Warspite on March 03, 2013, 07:22:35 PM
Fascists were corporatist, not really socialist. Unless there were fascist movements that believed in the workers' ownership of the means of production?
Is Francois Hollande a socialist?
Anyway, that's sort of missing the point. My point was that if we use a stupid degree system, we can apply all sorts of labels. Obviously Republicans aren't actually Fascist. That's puerile and silly. Are they marginally more like fascists then Democrats, yeah. Is calling Republicans fascists dishonest, yeah. Is calling Democrats socialists because they are marginally more like socialists then the Republicans dishonest, yeah.
Disagree. Socialism exists on a continuum. You can be a little more socialist or a little less. With fascism, either you are or you're not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 08:09:01 PM
Disagree. Socialism exists on a continuum. You can be a little more socialist or a little less. With fascism, either you are or you're not.
Are you sure that fascism is entirely binary? It seems that the current Hungarian government shows that a 'soft' fascism is possible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 05:24:16 PM
Libertarians are libertarian because they want *less* governmental intrusion, not because they want to return to a state of nature.
They make you wonder, though.
Quote from: Neil on March 03, 2013, 08:36:59 PM
Are you sure that fascism is entirely binary? It seems that the current Hungarian government shows that a 'soft' fascism is possible.
Point taken. But I think the exceptions are going to be groups that are based on (militant) ethnic nationalism. Arguably that's the irreducible core of fascism and naziism. Not countries that hold better military parades than others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 08:51:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 03, 2013, 08:36:59 PM
Are you sure that fascism is entirely binary? It seems that the current Hungarian government shows that a 'soft' fascism is possible.
Point taken. But I think the exceptions are going to be groups that are based on (militant) ethnic nationalism. Arguably that's the irreducible core of fascism and naziism. Not countries that hold better military parades than others.
Yeah, without ethnic nationalism you don't quite have fascism, do you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 08:09:01 PM
Disagree. Socialism exists on a continuum. You can be a little more socialist or a little less. With fascism, either you are or you're not.
Nonsense. Fascism is a notoriously flabby term and the fascists themselves were able to ally with ideologically similar parties, which often meant conservative parties. The racial aspect
I wonder what else I was going to write.
Who can say?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 04, 2013, 03:34:14 AM
Who can say?
Oh, I'm sure someone will come around and tell me what I actually meant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 07:43:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 03, 2013, 07:22:35 PM
Fascists were corporatist, not really socialist. Unless there were fascist movements that believed in the workers' ownership of the means of production?
Is Francois Hollande a socialist?
Technically a Social Democrat. :nerd:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2013, 04:51:24 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 04, 2013, 03:34:14 AM
Who can say?
Oh, I'm sure someone will come around and tell me what I actually meant.
Theoretically at least *you* ought to be able to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2013, 08:51:49 PM
Point taken. But I think the exceptions are going to be groups that are based on (militant) ethnic nationalism. Arguably that's the irreducible core of fascism and naziism. Not countries that hold better military parades than others.
Militant nationalism, I think is probably the irreducible core. I think whether its ethnic or not depends on how you define ethnicity. For example nationalism is exclusive to other nations but can be inclusive of previous, internal ethnic or sectarian divisions.
I think militarism and a cult of the leader are probably other core elements.
QuoteTechnically a Social Democrat.
Yeah. The party's called Socialist but they're not anymore, as anyone on the left of the PS moaning about Blairite Moscovici would tell you. It's just that great flaw of the European centre-left: its cloying sentimentality and nostalgia. The same thing that makes Ed Miliband go to the Durham Miners' Gala or any modern Labour leader call themselves a democratic socialist :bleeding:
At least Blair didn't go through the pretence.
The ethnic thing could be fairly elastic. The Nazis hated Jews, but the some of the early Italian fascists were Jewish. Part of the problem is that they were often amoral opportunists who were willing to say anything to come to power. If that meant adopting some Socialist terminology or calling yourself "a worker's party", so be it. It's easier to say what fascists were against, since it was primarily a reactionary movement.
The Italian experience is interesting in that you could hardly consider the Italians to be a single ethnic group. They'd been working hard to try and unify the country, but there were still enormous gaps in language and culture between the north and south.
Quote from: Neil on March 04, 2013, 09:58:01 PM
The Italian experience is interesting in that you could hardly consider the Italians to be a single ethnic group. They'd been working hard to try and unify the country, but there were still enormous gaps in language and culture between the north and south.
That's why until they had to adopt anti-Semitism their fascism was more along the lines of "restore the Roman Empire" rather than "x ethnic group is the source of all our problems".
I think they had to adopt anti-semitism because Italy was falling into the German orbit.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2013, 09:18:44 PM
The ethnic thing could be fairly elastic. The Nazis hated Jews, but the some of the early Italian fascists were Jewish. Part of the problem is that they were often amoral opportunists who were willing to say anything to come to power. If that meant adopting some Socialist terminology or calling yourself "a worker's party", so be it. It's easier to say what fascists were against, since it was primarily a reactionary movement.
Nazism was not a reactionary movement-- it viewed itself as revolutionary, and in fact named reactionaries (conservatives) as an enemy.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 01:00:10 AM
I think they had to adopt anti-semitism because Italy was falling into the German orbit.
AFAIK that's an argument often used by Mussolini apologists, that Italian racial laws were only edicted out of pressure from Germany in order to appease them following the Anschluss, which had created lots of tensions between Italy and Germany at that time.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
Nazism was not a reactionary movement-- it viewed itself as revolutionary, and in fact named reactionaries (conservatives) as an enemy.
Well to be fair this was a major source of conflict within the Nazi movement. They were sort of both of those things (radical and conservative) at the same time.
Quote from: The Larch on March 05, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 01:00:10 AM
I think they had to adopt anti-semitism because Italy was falling into the German orbit.
AFAIK that's an argument often used by Mussolini apologists, that Italian racial laws were only edicted out of pressure from Germany in order to appease them following the Anschluss, which had created lots of tensions between Italy and Germany at that time.
I don't buy it (not saying you do...just generally). That is about as weak as Vichy apologists claiming the Germans forced them to end the republic become a totalitarian state.
Quote from: The Larch on March 05, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
AFAIK that's an argument often used by Mussolini apologists, that Italian racial laws were only edicted out of pressure from Germany in order to appease them following the Anschluss, which had created lots of tensions between Italy and Germany at that time.
It may be "used by Mussolini apologists", but it also has the benefit of being correct. There were plenty of Jewish fascists in Italy when they first got rolling and no one seemed to mind.
I don't think you have to be a Mussolini fan to see that there was a difference before the Anschluß and after.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 12:11:23 PM
That is about as weak as Vichy apologists claiming the Germans forced them to end the republic become a totalitarian state.
Apples and oranges.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 12:31:26 PM
It may be "used by Mussolini apologists", but it also has the benefit of being correct. There were plenty of Jewish fascists in Italy when they first got rolling and no one seemed to mind.
I don't think you have to be a Mussolini fan to see that there was a difference before the Anschluß and after.
Of course there was, Mussolini wanted to be more like Hitler because he was afraid Hilter was overshadowing him. The nonsense comes from this coming from German pressure, rather it was a result of German success and Hitler becoming The Man.
Sequester: Not Enough (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/286057-credit-rating-agencies-shrug-off-sequester-say-more-cuts-needed)
Quote
Credit rating agencies shrug off sequester, say more cuts needed
By Peter Schroeder - 03/04/13 04:33 PM ET
Credit rating agencies are shrugging off sequestration, saying the U.S. government will need to do more to reduce the deficit if it wants to prevent a downgrade of the nation's credit rating.
While the agencies say the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts represent at least a step towards deficit reduction, they argue much more is needed to prevent the United States from losing its "AAA" rating.
"It's not the most ideal outcome," said David Riley, Fitch Rating's global managing director for sovereign ratings, on CNBC Europe. "You'd rather have intelligent cuts and some revenue measures as well ... but we don't live in an ideal world, and it's better to have some deficit reduction than none at all."
The agencies view it as a positive sign that Congress did not simply scrap the unpopular sequester. Erasing the cuts without coming up with an alternative, something pushed by some liberal lawmakers, would have added to the deficit and debt and further pressured agencies to downgrade the nation's credit rating.
At the same time, the agencies say they are worried that Washington's inability to replace the sequester with targeted deficit reduction underlines concerns about the U.S. government's dysfunction, a concern that led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the U.S. in 2011.
The S&P downgrade came just days after Congress approved a hike in the nation's debt limit in August 2011. The months-long debate caused stocks to dip and raised serious doubts about the ability of Republicans and Democrats to come together on fiscal issues.
It also led to the sequester, a series of cuts meant to be triggered only if Congress could not come up with a better deficit-reduction plan.
In downgrading the U.S. credit rating, S&P cited "political brinksmanship" and said Washington's actions in the debate made the nation "less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."
Watching both parties continue to butt heads on fiscal issues, S&P is confident they made the right call.
"The political discord around this process was a factor in lowering the credit rating," said John Piecuch, a spokesman for the rater. "We believe that the events since then have validated our opinion."
Agencies are raising similar concerns with the sequester.
Just days before Friday's deadline, Fitch said allowing sequestration to occur would "further erode confidence" in policymakers' ability to strike the broader deficit deals needed to get the country's debt under control.
In addition, while the sequester will reduce spending and the deficit in the short term, U.S. deficits are expected to rise toward $1 trillion again by 2023.
The sequester reduces defense and non-defense discretionary spending, but does nothing to curtail Medicare spending, a key driver of the deficit.
The Congressional Budget Office found the deficit will drop to $430 billion by 2015 partly because of the sequester, and will continue to fall if spending caps remain curtailed by the budget cuts. (The "fiscal cliff" deal in January also improved the nation's outlook by bringing in an additional $600 billion in revenue.)
Yet the CBO finds deficits will rise again in later years as entitlement costs continue to skyrocket and the population ages.
Raters say Congress will need to make even tougher choices to rein in debt and deficits if the country is to keep its top-shelf ratings.
The overarching concern from credit raters is getting the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio on a sustainable course.
According to Fitch, assuming Congress leaves the sequester fully in place, policymakers would still need to track down another $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction to get the nation's debt on a sustainable course. Actually driving down that ratio would require another $3 trillion in deficit reduction.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke struck a similar note when he testified before Congress last week.
He warned that while the sequester cuts might improve the nation's finances in the short term, they do nothing to address the actual drivers of long-term fiscal woes. He called on Congress to replace the sequester with longer-term fiscal reforms that actually address those issues.
"The difficult process of addressing longer-term fiscal imbalances has only begun," Bernanke added.
Credit raters are not weighing in on whether Congress should raise taxes, reduce spending or lower entitlement benefits to improve the nation's fiscal trajectory.
Both Fitch and Moody's Investors Service still give the U.S. their top rating, but both have placed it on a negative outlook, effectively warning that Washington will need to address the nation's long-term debt issues in 2013 or face a downgrade.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 12:57:56 PM
Of course there was, Mussolini wanted to be more like Hitler because he was afraid Hilter was overshadowing him. The nonsense comes from this coming from German pressure, rather it was a result of German success and Hitler becoming The Man.
The point, regardless of motive & intent, is that pre-Anschluß Italian fascism was not anti-Semitic.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 04:55:22 PM
The point, regardless of motive & intent, is that pre-Anschluß Italian fascism was not anti-Semitic.
Well that is true. I just wanted to make sure nobody acts like Mussolini was not ultimately responsible for how things went down.
GODDAMMIT HE MADE THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 04:55:22 PM
The point, regardless of motive & intent, is that pre-Anschluß Italian fascism was not anti-Semitic.
Well that is true. I just wanted to make sure nobody acts like Mussolini was not ultimately responsible for how things went down.
But he wasn't. It was all someone else's fault!!
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 04:57:21 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 04:55:22 PM
The point, regardless of motive & intent, is that pre-Anschluß Italian fascism was not anti-Semitic.
Well that is true. I just wanted to make sure nobody acts like Mussolini was not ultimately responsible for how things went down.
He got exactly what he deserved, if that's what you mean :)
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2013, 09:18:44 PM
The ethnic thing could be fairly elastic. The Nazis hated Jews, but the some of the early Italian fascists were Jewish. Part of the problem is that they were often amoral opportunists who were willing to say anything to come to power. If that meant adopting some Socialist terminology or calling yourself "a worker's party", so be it. It's easier to say what fascists were against, since it was primarily a reactionary movement.
Nazism was not a reactionary movement-- it viewed itself as revolutionary, and in fact named reactionaries (conservatives) as an enemy.
It adopted all kinds of names for who ever opposed it. Fact is, it allied with conservatives and then used the term later when no longer needed them. I know there is a whole thing in the US these where Nazism isn't actually right wing, but I thought you and Yi were immune to that nonsense.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 05:01:40 PM
It adopted all kinds of names for who ever opposed it. Fact is, it allied with conservatives and then used the term later when no longer needed them.
Conservatives and Nazis tolerated each other for a time. IIRC the Nazis used that term from the very beginning.
QuoteI know there is a whole thing in the US these where Nazism isn't actually right wing, but I thought you and Yi were immune to that nonsense.
Oh, you wanna go there, huh? There certainly were some rightwing elements to Nazism, but it's way too simplistic to call it rightwing. There was a noticeable socialist element to it as well, and on the whole it doesn't fit into the right-left paradigm as neatly as you'd like it to.
Yeah, I went there. First, there can be "socialist" elements in a right wing doctrine. Second, not all non-capitalist ideas are automatically socialist. I suppose it's to simplistic to call Communism a "left-wing" doctrine, as well right?
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 04:57:21 PM
Well that is true. I just wanted to make sure nobody acts like Mussolini was not ultimately responsible for how things went down.
I never understood why that would be a defense. Your new northern neighbor says he wants to liquidate a certain amount of your population and it's not your fault when you let him do it?
Quote from: frunk on March 05, 2013, 06:15:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 04:57:21 PM
Well that is true. I just wanted to make sure nobody acts like Mussolini was not ultimately responsible for how things went down.
I never understood why that would be a defense. Your new northern neighbor says he wants to liquidate a certain amount of your population and it's not your fault when you let him do it?
That is what most of Europe would like us believe.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2013, 09:38:13 AMNazism was not a reactionary movement-- it viewed itself as revolutionary, and in fact named reactionaries (conservatives) as an enemy.
Well you can have reactionary revolutionaries, Iran proves that.
But I think Fascism was a reactionary movement. One of their core attitudes was a reaction against the perceived failures and betrayal of liberal democracy, and the anarchy of socialism. The same sort of view leads to out-and-out reactionaries who want to re-establish a previous version of the state. Normally some idealised version of an absolute monarchy - this was present in Germany, Italy and the Carlists in Spain. They all worked to some extent with Fascist movements though not necessarily comfortably, I think they were all also 'useful idiots'.
The Fascist response was a sort of reactionary modernism. That liberal democracy had so betrayed the nation and socialism so besmirched their cities that everything had to be torn down and they had to build not an immediate idealised past but an almost mythical Aryan Germany or Italian Roman Empire. They were revolutionary but I think their motivation and their enablers were reactionary.
But then I wouldn't ever equate reactionary and conservative. I think conservatives were those who evolved in order to conserve. They didn't yearn for a return to an absolutist order but to make liberal democracy work and, yes, the Centre Party in Germany and the Italian People's Party in Italy though conservative, Catholic Christian democrats suffered and were persecuted under Fascist regimes. I think in Spain as well of the suffering of the Basques who were conservative, devout Catholics destroyed by reactionaries or Unamuno's courage. They were an enemy to Fascists because they accommodated the destruction of the nation by participating and believing in liberal democracy.
That's mostly semantics. By that logic communism was reactionary because it was a reaction to the perceived excesses of bourgeois capitalist democracy.
Phalangism was the only reactionary one of the three.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2013, 08:39:59 PM
That's mostly semantics. By that logic communism was reactionary because it was a reaction to the perceived excesses of bourgeois capitalist democracy.
It is entirely semantics. It's about the meanings of words.
Also by that logic communism is a progressive revolutionary movement. It's about building a new mythical utopia, not a return to one. If we get rid of the kulaks and the politicians we can build utopia, if we purge the nation of collaborators we can restore her native greatness. Capitalism (I can't think of a capitalist democracy that went communist off the top of my head) delayed utopia while liberal democracy destroyed the nation.
Edit: And of course the alternate view is that fascism was a socialist and revolutionary movement, just like communism. So the two are more or less indistinguishable, which isn't even semantics it's sophism.
Mussolini disagreed. He said that Fascism was reactionary. Shelf is right about Fascism though, reactionary modernism is a pretty good description. I think that reactionary is similar to conservative, though not the same. The conservative is typically more grounded. The reactionary believes in an imaginary past be it a racial pure Germany or a free and harmonious Christian America.
You right wingers are strange bunch, so eager to draw lines from liberals to socialists then to communists but if someone else draws a line from you to some of your ideological cousins you cry bloody murder. It's like you believe that conservatism really only exists in American after 1980 and that anything that isn't what you believe is not right wing and thus left wing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 08:55:28 PM
Mussolini disagreed. He said that Fascism was reactionary.
Quite. 'Fascism is reaction'.
What's the difference between crying bloody murder and disagreeing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2013, 09:14:57 PM
What's the difference between crying bloody murder and disagreeing?
A difference of... degree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2013, 09:14:57 PM
What's the difference between crying bloody murder and disagreeing?
Slower and with diagrams please :P
Incidentally, Yi and I had a very similar argument almost one year ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 10:59:09 PM
Incidentally, Yi and I had a very similar argument almost one year ago.
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't resolved.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 10:59:09 PM
Incidentally, Yi and I had a very similar argument almost one year ago.
Link?
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 10:59:09 PM
Incidentally, Yi and I had a very similar argument almost one year ago.
Link?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7207.msg393175.html#msg393175
I think the federal government is shutting down already, before March 27th. They're shutting down the White House tours beginning this weekend, because of sequester. So Pres Obama won't be able to get in to go to work! ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:30:13 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't resolved.
:lol:
I swear, this place is like a perpetual motion machine where the fuel is people who will argue the same position for years without considering another position.
Quote from: KRonn on March 06, 2013, 09:35:01 AM
I think the federal government is shutting down already, before March 27th. They're shutting down the White House tours beginning this weekend, because of sequester. So Pres Obama won't be able to get in to go to work! ;)
Rand Paul is shutting down the government with his filibuster today. Hilarious thing is, nobody's in the chamber to listen to it since it's a snow day.
So do we have a budget finally?
Quote
U.S. Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Saturday narrowly passed its first federal budget in four years, a move that will usher in a relative lull in Washington's fiscal wars until an anticipated summer showdown over raising the debt ceiling.
The budget plan passed 50-49 at about 5 a.m. after a marathon voting session in the Democratic-controlled chamber. Four Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns in 2014 joined all the Senate Republicans in opposing the measure, which seeks to raise nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenues by closing some tax breaks for the wealthy.
The Senate budget, which reflects Democratic priorities of boosting near-term job growth and preserving social safety net programs, will square off in coming months against a Republican-focused budget passed by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives.
Neither of the non-binding blueprints has a chance of passage in the opposing chamber, leaving Congress no closer to resolving deep differences over how to shrink U.S. deficits and grow the economy. But they give each party a platform from which to tout their respective fiscal visions.
The Democrats' plan from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray aims to reduce deficits by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.
The Republican plan from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan seeks $4.6 trillion in savings over the same period without raising new taxes. It aims to reach a small surplus by 2023 through deep cuts to healthcare and social programs that aid the elderly and poor.
Murray said after the vote that she would try to work with Ryan on a path toward compromise.
"While it is clear that the policies, values, and priorities of the Senate budget are very different than those articulated in the House budget, I know the American people are expecting us to work together to end the gridlock and find common ground, and I plan to continue doing exactly that."
SHUTDOWN THREAT
The White House welcomed the Senate move. "Today, the Senate passed a budget plan that will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
"Now it is time for our leaders to come together to find common ground. The president has put a plan on the table that reflects compromise, and he will continue to work with both sides to see if there is an opportunity to reach a solution to our budget challenges," he said in a statement.
Passage of a stop-gap government funding measure on Thursday lowered the temperature in the budget debate by eliminating the threat of a government shutdown next week.
"We're going to get a breather here. Congress will let things cool off a bit and there'll be other issues that come to the forefront in the spring," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, a firm that advises institutional investors on Washington politics.
These issues include legislation on gun control, immigration reform and initial work on simplifying the tax code, which is particularly important to Republicans.
Joining Republicans in opposing the Democratic budget were Democratic senators from conservative-leaning states: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Voting for a budget that raises tax revenues could increase their vulnerability in congressional elections next year and put Democrats' thin majority at risk.
In the lead-up to the Senate vote early on Saturday morning, the body considered more than 100 largely symbolic, non-binding amendments to the budget aimed at scoring political points and staking out positions.
Among notable amendments, the Senate signaled strong support for allowing states more authority to collect sales taxes on Internet purchases, for approval of the controversial Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline and for repealing a tax on medical devices imposed by President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.
The Senate also voted 99-0 to end policies that subsidized large banks considered "too big to fail," but came out against imposing taxes on industrial carbon emissions.
Ryan's plan aims to reach a small surplus with no tax increases by 2023 through deep cuts to social safety net programs. This enables Republicans to claim that they are more responsible by balancing the budget.
"The House budget changes our debt course, while the Senate budget does not," said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
BATTLE OVER 'BALANCE'
In a taste of the ideological debates to come, Murray claimed that the Senate budget was more "balanced" because it emphasized job growth and offered an equal amount of revenue increases and spending cuts.
The Senate had not passed a budget resolution since 2009 because of fiscal policy disputes with House Republicans that forced Congress to turn to numerous stop-gap spending measures to avoid government shutdowns.
To protect their thin Senate majority, Democrats avoided exposing their members to potentially damaging votes to raise taxes ahead of 2012 elections, arguing that a 2011 budget deal set spending levels for several years and made the non-binding budget legislation unnecessary.
But this year, under the February debt limit increase law, members of both the House and Senate faced pay suspensions if their chamber had failed to pass a budget by April 15.
Although lawmakers in both parties have called for a return to normal budgeting procedures after years of stop-gap spending bills and high-pressure deadlines, there is little chance that they can work out differences between the two budgets.
"The idea of conferencing them is kind of a joke. You would expect that if there were a chance of success, they wouldn't have planted flags on completely different planets," said Sean West, U.S. policy director at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy.
Ultimately, it may take another 11th-hour deal between Obama and congressional Republicans to set a fiscal path forward as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he said. The Treasury is expected to exhaust its borrowing capacity around late July or early August.
In 2011, a similar fight over the debt limit shook financial markets and cost the United States its top-tier credit rating.
More revenue, Keystone XL to make teh Canuckleheads happy, and the medical equipment tax gone.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 24, 2013, 02:25:43 PM
So do we have a budget finally?
No. We have a Senate budget resolution finally.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 24, 2013, 02:25:43 PM
But this year, under the February debt limit increase law, members of both the House and Senate faced pay suspensions if their chamber had failed to pass a budget by April 15.
:lol:
So the only way the USA can even get a (I really don't know what the best term is here? "pretend"/"phantom"/"fake"/"really a green paper masquerading as a") budget passed is to threaten legislators pay?
Well, it's a start anyway.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:30:13 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't resolved.
:lol:
I swear, this place is like a perpetual motion machine where the fuel is people who will argue the same position for years without considering another position.
I play a long game.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 24, 2013, 04:05:15 PM
(I really don't know what the best term is here? "pretend"/"phantom"/"fake"/"really a green paper masquerading as a")
Proposed I think.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2013, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:30:13 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't resolved.
:lol:
I swear, this place is like a perpetual motion machine where the fuel is people who will argue the same position for years without considering another position.
I play a long game.
It's a truly stupid game, strangely played by otherwise intelligent people.
Oh, well lets just drop everything because fahdiz, in his infinite wisdom, has said our actions are stupid. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2013, 07:23:54 PM
Oh, well lets just drop everything because fahdiz, in his infinite wisdom, has said our actions are stupid. :rolleyes:
Finally.
Fahdiz can be Censor. I'll call him Cato.
So this could have ended years ago if fahdiz had got off his ass and logged in here once or twice? :mad:
Damn that Fhdz
Quote from: sbr on March 24, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
So this could have ended years ago if fahdiz had got off his ass and logged in here once or twice? :mad:
The whole forum would have been gone years ago if Fahdiz had his way.
This forum has outlived it's usefulness.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 24, 2013, 09:08:49 PM
This forum has outlived it's usefulness.
What usefulness?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:30:13 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 05, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
I'm sorry to hear it wasn't resolved.
:lol:
I swear, this place is like a perpetual motion machine where the fuel is people who will argue the same position for years without considering another position.
I changed my views on abortion. This may have been before your time--I don't think so, but it was a while back. I was once a stout pro-life advocate, and pretty much the only pro-life atheist I've ever heard of. Not so much now.
Senate Barbers Get TrimmedThe Senate's Hair Care Services Unit will soon be privatized as part of budgetary belt tightening. :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/politics/senate-barbers-get-trimmed-in-latest-budget-cuts.html
Quote"It's time," said Senator John McCain of Arizona, a longtime patron who, like many others in the Capitol, said he recognized the infeasibility of government-subsidized haircuts for senators and their staff.
"In fact, I was talking to some of my friends there the other day," Mr. McCain added, his thinning head of white hair looking freshly shorn, "and they said they recognized too that the time has come."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F03%2F28%2Fus%2FBARBERSHOP%2FBARBERSHOP-articleLarge.jpg&hash=455d6d2b5ba1f089f8227df602448253f2c595fb)
Quote from: Phillip V on March 28, 2013, 08:17:11 AM
Senate Barbers Get Trimmed
The Senate's Hair Care Services Unit will soon be privatized as part of budgetary belt tightening. :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/politics/senate-barbers-get-trimmed-in-latest-budget-cuts.html
Quote"It's time," said Senator John McCain of Arizona, a longtime patron who, like many others in the Capitol, said he recognized the infeasibility of government-subsidized haircuts for senators and their staff.
"In fact, I was talking to some of my friends there the other day," Mr. McCain added, his thinning head of white hair looking freshly shorn, "and they said they recognized too that the time has come."
:mellow:
It's shit like that really makes me think that our government is fucking stupid. We've had budget woes for how long now, and they're JUST considering getting rid of the barber shop? Seriously?
You've got to be kidding Meri. We have a trillion dollar defict (which, incidentally, you were arguing strongly against reducing too aggressively not too long ago); ending subsidized hair cuts is going to do diddly squat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
You've got to be kidding Meri. We have a trillion dollar defict (which, incidentally, you were arguing strongly against reducing too aggressively not too long ago); ending subsidized hair cuts is going to do diddly squat.
This is one example of silly "perks" that aren't necessary, that cost us money, and should have been cut a long time ago. Yes, I know that it's a small thing. However, a lot of small things add up. No, not to a trillion dollars, but it does add up. On top of that, it's a measure of the sheer wastefulness that's peppered throughout our country's budget.
On one hand it's like saying, "I have to lose 300 pounds, so I'll get a hair cut." On the other hand, it's like saying, "I'm massive and look awful, so I'll at least get my hair cut to look a little better while I'm working on losing the weight."
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:04:07 AM
On one hand it's like saying, "I have to lose 300 pounds, so I'll get a hair cut." On the other hand, it's like saying, "I'm massive and look awful, so I'll at least get my hair cut to look a little better while I'm working on losing the weight."
Well it if helps your self-esteem it's totally a good idea!!!! #fatacceptance
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:04:07 AM
However, a lot of small things add up.
No they don't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 09:12:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:04:07 AM
However, a lot of small things add up.
No they don't.
EVERY LITTLE BIT COUNTS.
Anyway in this day & age, even symbolic cuts are nice to see.
The problem with gestures like this is it gives people the impression that progress is being made.
"I may have $30,000 on my credit card, but I saved 50 cents on toilet paper with a coupon!"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
The problem with gestures like this is it gives people the impression that progress is being made.
Maybe, maybe not. A certain number of people don't care at all. For those who do, I'm not sure this will totally put them at ease.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
The problem with gestures like this is it gives people the impression that progress is being made.
Not really. What it shows is that Congress is willing to give up a few unnecessary perks to save a few pennies. It's the least they can do given that they're asking for billions in taxes and trillions in cuts to health care.
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:33:16 AM
Not really. What it shows is that Congress is willing to give up a few unnecessary perks to save a few pennies. It's the least they can do given that they're asking for billions in taxes and trillions in cuts to health care.
You know Meri, they're asking for billions in taxes and trillions in cuts so we don't go bust. As a country.
This is really bizarre thinking to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 09:39:53 AM
You know Meri, they're asking for billions in taxes and trillions in cuts so we don't go bust. As a country.
This is really bizarre thinking to me.
:huh:
I know. What is so bizarre about it? I am all for the taxes and the cuts. I'm also all for cutting the stupid little things that cost us over time but have no real value to the country as a whole.
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:49:16 AM
:huh:
I know. What is so bizarre about it? I am all for the taxes and the cuts. I'm also all for cutting the stupid little things that cost us over time but have no real value to the country as a whole.
The bizarre part is the notion is that our government is those guys over there who are taking our money, and in exchange for taxes and spending cuts they have to give up something.
We're a representative democracy. We elect people who decide who gets taxed and how much, and what to spend it on. All that spending goes to us.
Also, you never addressed the issue of your sudden change of heart on deficit reduction since Teh Fiscal Cliff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:49:16 AM
:huh:
I know. What is so bizarre about it? I am all for the taxes and the cuts. I'm also all for cutting the stupid little things that cost us over time but have no real value to the country as a whole.
The bizarre part is the notion is that our government is those guys over there who are taking our money, and in exchange for taxes and spending cuts they have to give up something.
We're a representative democracy. We elect people who decide who gets taxed and how much, and what to spend it on. All that spending goes to us.
Also, you never addressed the issue of your sudden change of heart on deficit reduction since Teh Fiscal Cliff.
What sudden change? I still believe that we need to take it slow. That doesn't mean that I don't think it should happen at all.
Did the US shut down? Please say yes.
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2013, 10:53:45 AM
Did the US shut down? Please say yes.
I would like to know too. Could have a day off. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 09:49:16 AM
:huh:
I know. What is so bizarre about it? I am all for the taxes and the cuts. I'm also all for cutting the stupid little things that cost us over time but have no real value to the country as a whole.
The bizarre part is the notion is that our government is those guys over there who are taking our money, and in exchange for taxes and spending cuts they have to give up something.
We're a representative democracy. We elect people who decide who gets taxed and how much, and what to spend it on. All that spending goes to us.
Also, you never addressed the issue of your sudden change of heart on deficit reduction since Teh Fiscal Cliff.
Yi's right. Also handsome and oh so smart.
More to the point, goverment isn't an "us vs them" thing. They
are us. We elect members of our our citizenry to represent us. In a sense we have all contributed to the debt, we can't blame some nebulous "them", for the problems of government, it is our fault, even handsome Yi.
Don't worry Yi I am not even remotely assured by the Senators having to get private sector haircuts.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:16:11 PM
More to the point, goverment isn't an "us vs them" thing. They are us. We elect members of our our citizenry to represent us. In a sense we have all contributed to the debt, we can't blame some nebulous "them", for the problems of government, it is our fault, even handsome Yi.
I am not sure they are as directly answerable to my will as you seem to think :hmm:
But anyway who gives a flying fuck whose fault it is? We need to get the problems fixed.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:16:11 PM
we can't blame some nebulous "them", for the problems of government,
I'll just blame you. How about that?
Good enough.
Seriously though, I think Congress is much more responsive to what people want then we give them credit for. The problem is that we want contradictory things. People want low taxes and high quality services. The result is high debt.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:49:11 PM
Seriously though, I think Congress is much more responsive to what people want then we give them credit for. The problem is that we want contradictory things. People want low taxes and high quality services. The result is high debt.
Oh I agree. I have not been effective at convincing other people that my ideas are right, as is pretty evident on this forum :P
I have alwas been in favor of tax and spend or not tax and not spend. Either way is fine really. The majority of Americans clearly disagree and believe in some sort of magical debt fairy. But they are not alone, looking at how Germany is being treated NOT deficit spending is clearly Nazi-esque Imperialism of the worst kind.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:49:11 PM
Seriously though, I think Congress is much more responsive to what people want then we give them credit for. The problem is that we want contradictory things. People want low taxes and high quality services. The result is high debt.
There's some truth to that. But I think another problem is with career politicians (on both sides) who get entrenched in their positions and institutionalize bad habits, like deficit spending.
I used to be 100% against term limits but I'm much more open to the idea now.
I think there is a disconnect in how people view spending and services. Spending is what other people get. Services are what I get back from my hard earned tax dollars. There are similar disconnects in entitlements, (welfare is what lazy people get, but I payed into to Social Security so I deserve what I get back out), and goverment employees (leeching bureaucrats vs brave soldiers saving democracy). The result is you have people who say they want a balance budget but think they can do it by only cutting the things they don't like unaware that the things they don't like and the things they do like are often the same thing, or they automatically ignore 70% of the budget and focus on tiny things like foreign aid.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:49:11 PM
Seriously though, I think Congress is much more responsive to what people want then we give them credit for. The problem is that we want contradictory things. People want low taxes and high quality services. The result is high debt.
There's some truth to that. But I think another problem is with career politicians (on both sides) who get entrenched in their positions and institutionalize bad habits, like deficit spending.
I used to be 100% against term limits but I'm much more open to the idea now.
They only get elected by doing what people want. People want deficit spending, (though nobody says it like that), instead it's things like "giving back that tax money to the people". Guess what, that's deficit spending.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
They only get elected by doing what people want. People want deficit spending, (though nobody says it like that), instead it's things like "giving back that tax money to the people". Guess what, that's deficit spending.
That's too simplistic. Some people want spending, and some want low taxes. There's not necessarily a complete overlap there.
And btw I don't think most of the people understand some of Washington's institutionalized silliness. Like baseline budgeting, under which "spending cuts" only mean a reduction in the originally expected increase in spending :bleeding:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
They only get elected by doing what people want. People want deficit spending, (though nobody says it like that), instead it's things like "giving back that tax money to the people". Guess what, that's deficit spending.
Eh they win re-election something like 90+% of the time and many of them run unopposed. I am pretty sure they are under that much pressure to conform to this roaring populist tide to destroy the country.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 04:41:28 PM
I think there is a disconnect in how people view spending and services.
Indeed. It is what Bismark said would destroy our system. And it is. So...why not stop doing that now? Surely there comes a time when self preservation has to factor in there.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:16:11 PM
We elect members of our our citizenry to represent us.
Are they representing us, Raz?
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 04:48:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
They only get elected by doing what people want. People want deficit spending, (though nobody says it like that), instead it's things like "giving back that tax money to the people". Guess what, that's deficit spending.
That's too simplistic. Some people want spending, and some want low taxes. There's not necessarily a complete overlap there.
And btw I don't think most of the people understand some of Washington's institutionalized silliness. Like baseline budgeting, under which "spending cuts" only mean a reduction in the originally expected increase in spending :bleeding:
Not complete, but a great deal. It really stuck me when they were polling Tea Party types back in 2010 how many wanted to "cut spending", without actually cutting spending. I imagine there are similar problems in the Democratic party. Blaming Washington is easy, but useless. The lion's share of the blame lies with us.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 28, 2013, 06:17:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:16:11 PM
We elect members of our our citizenry to represent us.
Are they representing us, Raz?
Well, me at least. I don't know if you are still a citizen. You sorta dropped off the radar for a while, I don't know what you were up to.
I read some piece about GOP types - including Michele Bachmann - complaining about the FAA shutting down flight control towers in their districts; those towers were economically positive for the community and important.
That does seem congruent with Raz's point - people are fine with cutting stuff in other peoples districts, but less fine with cuts in their own.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 06:27:27 PM
The lion's share of the blame lies with us.
Not us. You :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2013, 06:39:06 PMNot us. You :contract:
I blame you way more than Raz.
I didn't know Derspeiss wasn't an American citizen.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2013, 06:35:04 PM
I read some piece about GOP types - including Michele Bachmann - complaining about the FAA shutting down flight control towers in their districts; those towers were economically positive for the community and important.
That does seem congruent with Raz's point - people are fine with cutting stuff in other peoples districts, but less fine with cuts in their own.
You missed Raz's point, which is a good one. Tea Partiers thought they could balance the budget by cutting Sesame Street and Food Stamps. That saves you a little more than Senate hair cuts.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 28, 2013, 06:17:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 28, 2013, 03:16:11 PM
We elect members of our our citizenry to represent us.
Are they representing us, Raz?
Well, me at least. I don't know if you are still a citizen. You sorta dropped off the radar for a while, I don't know what you were up to.
Corporate bailouts represent Raz's interests. Good to know.
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 08:30:34 AM
:mellow:
It's shit like that really makes me think that our government is fucking stupid. We've had budget woes for how long now, and they're JUST considering getting rid of the barber shop? Seriously?
You do realize that closing the barbershop gets you about one one-millionth of the way to the goal, right? It's such a half measure that it's essentially irrelevant.
It would make more sense to eliminate the USAF.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2013, 06:35:04 PM
I read some piece about GOP types - including Michele Bachmann - complaining about the FAA shutting down flight control towers in their districts; those towers were economically positive for the community and important.
That does seem congruent with Raz's point - people are fine with cutting stuff in other peoples districts, but less fine with cuts in their own.
Yes, people never want to cut their programs, just someone elses's. And you can be sure that Dems will yell just as loudly over cuts in their districts. However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about. Making it hurt. And the cuts are mainly in future spending growth. Plus some of the agencies were cutting before sequester hit. Our pols put this through, Congress and the White House. They had a chance to change it and still can if they get a budget done this month, the first one in about five years.
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:22:21 PM
However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about.
I've heard this line a number of times (mostly from Obama) but never accompanied with any suggestion about what would constitute cutting intelligently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2013, 01:28:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:22:21 PM
However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about.
I've heard this line a number of times (mostly from Obama) but never accompanied with any suggestion about what would constitute cutting intelligently.
I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not. Lots of those in the know about govt budgeting have ideas of places to cut with the least impact, or what to streamline, eliminate duplicate programs, and more.
Best case would have been for Congress to have put together something in concert with the White House. But of course that never happened hence why we came to such a silly thing as the design of sequester.
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:47:37 PM
I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not.
This is true; apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2013, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 08:30:34 AM
:mellow:
It's shit like that really makes me think that our government is fucking stupid. We've had budget woes for how long now, and they're JUST considering getting rid of the barber shop? Seriously?
You do realize that closing the barbershop gets you about one one-millionth of the way to the goal, right? It's such a half measure that it's essentially irrelevant.
It would make more sense to eliminate the USAF.
QFT.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2013, 02:22:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:47:37 PM
I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not.
This is true; apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.
The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:22:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2013, 06:35:04 PM
I read some piece about GOP types - including Michele Bachmann - complaining about the FAA shutting down flight control towers in their districts; those towers were economically positive for the community and important.
That does seem congruent with Raz's point - people are fine with cutting stuff in other peoples districts, but less fine with cuts in their own.
Yes, people never want to cut their programs, just someone elses's. And you can be sure that Dems will yell just as loudly over cuts in their districts. However, I think the main galling point has been of the govt cutting stupidly, which is what the sequester is all about. Making it hurt. And the cuts are mainly in future spending growth. Plus some of the agencies were cutting before sequester hit. Our pols put this through, Congress and the White House. They had a chance to change it and still can if they get a budget done this month, the first one in about five years.
This may be true, but Dems aren't the ones devoted the idea of small government. "Government should spend less in your district", is much less principled then the general "Government should spend less".
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2013, 02:22:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:47:37 PM
I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not.
This is true; apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.
The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.
And what did they want?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2013, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2013, 02:22:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:47:37 PM
I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not.
This is true; apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.
The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.
And what did they want?
Uh, to give the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit. :unsure:
I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2013, 06:45:24 PM
You missed Raz's point, which is a good one. Tea Partiers thought they could balance the budget by cutting Sesame Street and Food Stamps. That saves you a little more than Senate hair cuts.
Yep. In the UK and the US the only area of the budget that a majority of voters want to cut is foreign aid. It's also probably the smallest discreet bit of the budget that could be cut.
QuoteI've heard this line a number of times (mostly from Obama) but never accompanied with any suggestion about what would constitute cutting intelligently.
Not applying the cuts equally to every department would be a start.
QuoteAnd what did they want?
To embarrass the President. The sequester was never meant to take effect. No-one wanted it it. If the GOP had given the Democrats the power to choose cuts then it would have been a better policy, because the cuts wouldn't necessarily be so stupid. But politically all of the negatives would attach to Obama because he would have to choose what to cut and what not to. So any cuts to defence wouldn't be because of the sequester, but because of the Democratic President, and the same's true for all of the cuts.
Of course it is worth pointing out the cumulative effect of cuts and tax rises in the US is about $2.5 trillion over the next decade, so around two-thirds of what's necessary to stabilise the national debt. Which would be fine. There does need to be some sense of perspective about this.
The real problems, which are largely unaddressed, are the long-term problems particularly the cost of healthcare which is the biggest single problem for public finances in the US (and in my view increasingly for the private sector too). Obamacare has reduced healthcare inflation a reasonable amount but a lot more needs to be done.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2013, 02:54:22 PM
I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.
More likely than what-- doing nothing and letting the cuts happen as planned? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
Not applying the cuts equally to every department would be a start.
That's just another way of saying the cuts aren't intelligent. Which departments should get more?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
QuoteAnd what did they want?
To embarrass the President. The sequester was never meant to take effect. No-one wanted it it. If the GOP had given the Democrats the power to choose cuts then it would have been a better policy, because the cuts wouldn't necessarily be so stupid. But politically all of the negatives would attach to Obama because he would have to choose what to cut and what not to. So any cuts to defence wouldn't be because of the sequester, but because of the Democratic President, and the same's true for all of the cuts.
Yeah, heaven forbid the president take an opportunity to show some real leadership :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2013, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
Not applying the cuts equally to every department would be a start.
That's just another way of saying the cuts aren't intelligent. Which departments should get more?
Cutting everything equally isn't intelligent. There should be discrimination and prioritisation - governments are elected to make choices and not doing that is a sort of abdication of that.
What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...:mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 03:01:34 PM
Yeah, heaven forbid the president take an opportunity to show some real leadership :lol:
Exactly my point. It was the right policy but for all the wrong reasons.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...:mellow:
Well thankfully you have no say. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...:mellow:
But the criticism is not that the cuts "don't fit my political persuasion," it's that they're stupid. The obverse of stupid is smart. So the person who calls the cuts stupid is implicitly stating that there are a set of cuts which are intelligent.
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2013, 03:05:54 PM
Well thankfully you have no say. :D
Indeed :lol:
I'm still someone who thinks the biggest disappointment of the coalition was that neither party used it to break their most expensive, ruinous and ridiculous policies of protecting NHS budget (Tories) or always largely increasing pensions (Lib Dems) <_<
Needless to say no-one agrees with me on that :P
QuoteBut the criticism is not that the cuts "don't fit my political persuasion," it's that they're stupid. The obverse of stupid is smart. So the person who calls the cuts stupid is implicitly stating that there are a set of cuts which are intelligent.
Eating a Chinese buffet is stupid. Choosing a restaurant you like is smart. When you're out with a group and can't make up your mind because someone wants to gorge in a brasserie, someone fancies numerous over-priced local tapas and someone wants a rather thin Austrian gruel. Settling for the buffet is stupid. The guy who then says it while you sit down to prawn toast may be a bit of a dick, but they're not wrong.
It was stupid not to have been able to make choices - the content of those choices is going to depend on someone's political persuasion.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 03:13:04 PM
Eating a Chinese buffet is stupid. Choosing a restaurant you like is smart. When you're out with a group and can't make up your mind because someone wants to gorge in a brasserie, someone fancies numerous over-priced local tapas and someone wants a rather thin Austrian gruel. Settling for the buffet is stupid. The guy who then says it while you sit down to prawn toast may be a bit of a dick, but they're not wrong.
It was stupid not to have been able to make choices - the content of those choices is going to depend on someone's political persuasion.
Settling for the Chinese buffet is not stupid if two of the guys hate French food, two of the guys hate tapas, and two of the guys hate Austrian...gruel? The fact that you eat Austrian gruel three times a day doesn't make Der Gruelhaus a smart choice.
Have you been to a Chinese buffet? It's always stupid. Settle for a real restaurant.
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2013, 03:05:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...:mellow:
Well thankfully you have no say. :D
No shit, right? I think everybody regardless of political persuasion can agree on that one!
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 03:24:54 PM
Have you been to a Chinese buffet? It's always stupid. Settle for a real restaurant.
So you think Obama should have settled for privatizing Medicare. That's a real restaurant.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2013, 02:54:22 PM
I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.
:lol:
The point of giving the president the ability to target the cuts was to allow the Republicans to take credit for cutting spending in general and reducing the deficit (two things that are popular), leaving the president with the blame for cutting specific things (something which is almost always unpopular).
Cute how you guys defend the president's decision due to political implications. You'd be nailing a GOP prez to the cross if the roles were reversed.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2013, 04:01:59 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2013, 02:54:22 PM
I think giving the Prez the ability to choose the cuts merely made it more likely the cuts would happen. The latter being the objective.
:lol:
The point of giving the president the ability to target the cuts was to allow the Republicans to take credit for cutting spending in general and reducing the deficit (two things that are popular), leaving the president with the blame for cutting specific things (something which is almost always unpopular).
Oh yeah that makes sense. :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 02:52:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2013, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2013, 02:22:47 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 29, 2013, 01:47:37 PM
I'd think it would make sense to let managers decide what cuts can be made to have the least impact on their actual responsibilities. My understanding of sequester is it just says cut across the board everything in a department, with no regard to discriminate between what's necessary or not.
This is true; apparently operational management has no discretion in the specificity of the cuts, which would make much more sense.
The GOP proposed giving the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit and he turned them down.
And what did they want?
Uh, to give the president flexibility to target the cuts as he saw fit. :unsure:
I meant in return. Could you link me something describing this remarkable political charity?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2013, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
What you think should be cut is going to depend entirely on your political persuasion. For myself - based on what I know of the US - I'd eliminate agricultural subsidies, massively slash defence spending, cut aid to the states to barely anything and possibly nationalise something...:mellow:
But the criticism is not that the cuts "don't fit my political persuasion," it's that they're stupid. The obverse of stupid is smart. So the person who calls the cuts stupid is implicitly stating that there are a set of cuts which are intelligent.
Cutting across the board will reduce effectiveness across the board. It's usually better to target cuts in some particular area, by say removing some programs or budget items entirely, then settle with everything being weaker. No idea why you'd nationalize something. That seems like it would make matter worse.
Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 07:58:51 PM
Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.
Like the Affordable Care Act :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 07:58:51 PM
Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.
What is this in response to?
To you, Rain Man.
Or maybe Shelf. Too buzzed right now to care.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2013, 06:06:38 PM
Cutting across the board will reduce effectiveness across the board. It's usually better to target cuts in some particular area, by say removing some programs or budget items entirely, then settle with everything being weaker. No idea why you'd nationalize something. That seems like it would make matter worse.
Nationalize?? What are you talking about.
I think you've missed my point Raz. I'm not arguing that it's impossible to cut more intelligently than the sequester has done. I think it's very possible. I'm pointing out that Obama likes to comment on the stupidity of the cuts without offering an alternative.
Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2013, 04:01:59 PM
:lol:
The point of giving the president the ability to target the cuts was to allow the Republicans to take credit for cutting spending in general and reducing the deficit (two things that are popular), leaving the president with the blame for cutting specific things (something which is almost always unpopular).
I agree Yake. It was a poisoned chalice. But the fact that he was offered the option does undercut significantly his current rhetoric about the sequester being stupid.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 07:58:51 PM
Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.
Yep. But as you say that's sometimes. Of recent moments I think the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling and TARP are ones which require leadership - choosing the precise composition of a fixed amount of cuts, less so.
QuoteCute how you guys defend the president's decision due to political implications. You'd be nailing a GOP prez to the cross if the roles were reversed.
I don't think so. I mean if the Republicans and the Democrats had agreed to raise taxes by x amount but how they were raised was entirely for Republicans to decide I'd entirely understand if the GOP said no.
Edit: And I think they'd be perfectly within their rights to moan about the across-the-board nature.
QuoteSo you think Obama should have settled for privatizing Medicare. That's a real restaurant.
Nothing wrong with efficient privatised healthcare with provision for the poor. The Dutch privatisation shows that.
As I say I think the unique American combination of inefficient private and public healthcare is the biggest long-term issue you've got.
QuoteI agree Yake. It was a poisoned chalice. But the fact that he was offered the option does undercut significantly his current rhetoric about the sequester being stupid.
Again it's worth remembering: no-one wanted the sequester to happen. It was no-one's idea of a good policy. That it happened at all was stupid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2013, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2013, 06:06:38 PM
Cutting across the board will reduce effectiveness across the board. It's usually better to target cuts in some particular area, by say removing some programs or budget items entirely, then settle with everything being weaker. No idea why you'd nationalize something. That seems like it would make matter worse.
Nationalize?? What are you talking about.
I think you've missed my point Raz. I'm not arguing that it's impossible to cut more intelligently than the sequester has done. I think it's very possible. I'm pointing out that Obama likes to comment on the stupidity of the cuts without offering an alternative.
Shelf brought up Nationalizing. God knows why. Is the President in a position to offer an alternative?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2013, 09:18:53 PM
Again it's worth remembering: no-one wanted the sequester to happen. It was no-one's idea of a good policy. That it happened at all was stupid.
Obama could legitimately say he was blackmailed into agreeing to any spending cuts at all and that if given his druthers he would be spending away like a crack head, but that's not the line he's taken. Instead he's taken the line that these particular cuts are stupid. Which suggests that there are intelligent cuts that could have been made instead. Yet he declined to select those intelligent cuts when given the choice. Which tells us that when given the choice between selecting intelligent cuts and ducking the issue, he chose to duck the issue. He put politics ahead of the well being of the country.
I'm still fuzzy on when and how Obama was given this "choice".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2013, 01:59:32 AM
Obama could legitimately say he was blackmailed into agreeing to any spending cuts at all and that if given his druthers he would be spending away like a crack head, but that's not the line he's taken. Instead he's taken the line that these particular cuts are stupid. Which suggests that there are intelligent cuts that could have been made instead. Yet he declined to select those intelligent cuts when given the choice. Which tells us that when given the choice between selecting intelligent cuts and ducking the issue, he chose to duck the issue. He put politics ahead of the well being of the country.
This is true, but I am not sure that it is more true of Obama than it was of the Republican presidential candidates, who actively challenged each other to see who could most sacrifice national interests in the interest of getting elected. It is certainly true of both sides in the Senate, and even more so both sides in the House. The House hasn't passed an actual Federal budget in, what, 5 years? The Republican leadership there wants to claim that they can solve the problem, without actually doing anything to solve the problem. Insofar as I can see, the House leadership
wants to see the country fail and misery increase, so that Obama and the Democrats get the blame, and the Republican chances to take the White House increase.
So, Obama is guilty, but so is pretty much everyone else.
Quote from: derspiess on March 29, 2013, 04:09:42 PM
Cute how you guys defend the president's decision due to political implications. You'd be nailing a GOP prez to the cross if the roles were reversed.
I think that the popular narative is that the Democrats generally act out of cowardice and stupidity, whereas the Republicans act out of hatred and avarice. The first breeds pity, whereas the second breeds anger.
Quote from: Neil on March 30, 2013, 11:34:07 AM
I think that the popular narative is that the Democrats generally act out of cowardice and stupidity, whereas the Republicans act out of hatred and avarice. The first breeds pity, whereas the second breeds anger.
It's nonsense too. From here it looks like the Democrats are pretty ruthless and the Republicans not massively competent.
Edit: I do find the liberal moaning absolutely mental. 'If only we were as ruthless and united as the Republicans we could be enjoying all of their success' :bleeding:
It's like the Tories now who think that the reason they lost the last election was because they didn't talk enough about Europe, immigration and why British people need to work harder. Those issues, however, had nothing to do with why they lost in 2001 and 2005 :wacko:
QuoteObama could legitimately say he was blackmailed into agreeing to any spending cuts at all and that if given his druthers he would be spending away like a crack head, but that's not the line he's taken. Instead he's taken the line that these particular cuts are stupid. Which suggests that there are intelligent cuts that could have been made instead.
The sequester happened because Congress failed to come up with an alternative. That was stupid. The way the cuts are being made is also stupid. I don't think that to point that out you have to have a detailed and public alternative position - we've had this argument for years.
QuoteHe put politics ahead of the well being of the country.
On something that doesn't matter so much. If spending's going to be cut (or taxes raised) by a fixed amount anyway then the political heat of getting to take all the blame isn't worth it. If you're given discretion over the size and the pace and specifics of a fiscal consolidation then I'd agree it's worth it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2013, 09:11:45 PM
The sequester happened because Congress failed to come up with an alternative. That was stupid. The way the cuts are being made is also stupid. I don't think that to point that out you have to have a detailed and public alternative position - we've had this argument for years.
The sequester happened because the Republican House was unable to agree with Democratic Senate and the Democratic president on alternative cuts. It's stupid to call the inability to reach a better agreement stupid when you were a party to the negotiations.
QuoteOn something that doesn't matter so much. If spending's going to be cut (or taxes raised) by a fixed amount anyway then the political heat of getting to take all the blame isn't worth it. If you're given discretion over the size and the pace and specifics of a fiscal consolidation then I'd agree it's worth it.
If it doesn't matter so much then Obama is stupid for spending all this air time talking about how stupid and important it is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2013, 09:19:14 PMThe sequester happened because the Republican House was unable to agree with Democratic Senate and the Democratic president on alternative cuts. It's stupid to call the inability to reach a better agreement stupid when you were a party to the negotiations.
That's why they appointed a supercommittee. Both sides made bad bets. The Democrats thought the threat of automatic defence cuts would drive Republicans to cave. I think the Republicans expected that the Democrats would be willing to do more or less anything to get rid of the sequester.
I also think you're mistaking Obama's role as that of the BBC or Mitch McConnell as opposed to a normal politician :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2013, 09:37:10 PM
I also think you're mistaking Obama's role as that of the BBC or Mitch McConnell as opposed to a normal politician :mellow:
I am pointing out the logical inconsistency in his rhetoric. Normal politicians are supposed to say things that make sense, even if you don't agree with them. When they don't, we should call them on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2013, 09:19:14 PM
The sequester happened because the Republican House was unable to agree with Democratic Senate and the Democratic president on alternative cuts. It's stupid to call the inability to reach a better agreement stupid when you were a party to the negotiations.
Why? Couldn't the other side be make ridiculous demands? It may take two to tango, but only one to ruin the dance.
We should call politicians out for lying or breaking promises not for being insufficiently jesuitical.
I still don't see the inconsistency. Everyone would probably agree that entirely equal cuts in all areas is not the best way to do anything. To make that point there is no need to then have a fully costed plan of cuts that should be made. Obama can call the cuts stupid; Republicans, if they want, can call the defence cuts stupid. Neither's being logically inconsistent, they're just stating facts as they see them which is what politicians try to do persuasively.
Obama always saw the sequester as a sword of Damocles that Congress would surely avoid. But also always promised that he'd veto any bill that repealed it without similar cuts. Not that it's in effect I don't see why he shouldn't be able to oppose it as a policy, as he always has.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2013, 09:56:23 PM
Why? Couldn't the other side be make ridiculous demands? It may take two to tango, but only one to ruin the dance.
Not according to Shelf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2013, 10:06:00 PMNot according to Shelf.
I think Raz's right.
But it's also possible that two sides just can't agree - no element of the ridiculous about it. Arguably that was the big mistake about the sequester. It wasn't a threat to Congress, so much as it was a comfortable fall-back position. If negotiations failed the budget would still be cut by that amount and no-one would be happy about it.
No-one would win and the deficit would fall - even if it hurt things that you might support when you're struggling in a negotiation that might look good enough.
Health Insurers Prevail in Washington
'Shares of health insurance companies soared today after federal officials scrapped proposed payment cuts to carriers that run Medicare plans.
Insurers including Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Cigna Corp. get paid by the federal government to run Medicare plans for more than 14 million Americans. Known as Medicare Advantage plans, the policies have been a growth spot for insurers as baby boomers turn 65 and appeal to seniors with perks like free gym memberships. Nearly one in three people on Medicare is on such a plan.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578399051181167338.html
15% of U.S. Receives Food Stamps
'Food-stamp use rose 1.8% in the U.S. in January from a year earlier, with 15% of the U.S. population receiving benefits.
One of the federal government's biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn't shrinking back alongside the recovery.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/05/some-15-of-u-s-receives-food-stamps/
I missed the old paper food stamps in the little booklet. I remember people staring as I ripped the fuckers out of the books to pay for my food. The bigger the audience, the slower I went.
Now these kids have electronic cards. They take the fun out of everything.
SSA disability has expanded a lot too.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 06, 2013, 03:05:04 PM
SSA disability has expanded a lot too.
Disability Fund to Be Depleted by 2016'Even as more people in the U.S. rely on disability benefits, the program that pays them is running into a problem: there isn't enough money coming in to cover the amount that's going out.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/07/disability-fund-to-be-depleted-by-2016/
Quote from: mongers on March 29, 2013, 02:25:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 28, 2013, 07:07:12 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 28, 2013, 08:30:34 AM
:mellow:
It's shit like that really makes me think that our government is fucking stupid. We've had budget woes for how long now, and they're JUST considering getting rid of the barber shop? Seriously?
You do realize that closing the barbershop gets you about one one-millionth of the way to the goal, right? It's such a half measure that it's essentially irrelevant.
It would make more sense to eliminate the USAF.
QFT.
Cut the Army, the USAF to its ICBM force, and reduce the Navy to its ballistic missile submarine contingent for second strike or counterforce strike capability. Fight wars solely through cheap nuclear weapons. Cost of Iraq War under old, flawed invasion/counter-insurgency paradigm: $812 billion. Cost of Iraq War under new, successful ICBM-only program: >$100 million, and that's only if we replaced the missiles and warheads. Savings accrued: 99.9%. Use extra dough to nationalize banks, purchase artisanal guillotines.