GOP And Dems Get Together On A BS Budget

[mrjarrell]

And Paul Ryan is saying it's a good deal. What a tool. The gop really knows how to pick 'em. This is a bad deal and doesn't address spending in any reality based fashion. Ryan is a moron. Here's hoping the house throws this back in his face and beats him senseless. The sequestration cuts have already proven themselves. Why get rid of them? Oh, that's right. There are goodies for both wings of the Boot On Your Neck Party.

Lawmakers unveil tentative budget deal, call for rolling back sequester | Fox News

I know at least one would be gop politician from the 5th district who has stated he'd vote against it. No doubt the current rep will go with it. She's just that type.

 

[Twangbanger]

The Left has been dreaming about "replacing" the Sequester since it was implemented. And the idiot Republicans seem to be going along with it. They'll cave with a promise of "entitlement reform" in exchange for more taxes, only the "entitlement reform" will get reformed out of existence at some point in the future, just like Bill Clinton's "End of Welfare as We Know It"...and the tax revenue will remain forever.

I do indeed hope Ryan gets hung out on a limb on this. Replace his ass. The half life of Republican Deficit Hawks does seem to be getting shorter.

 

[Denny347]

Do-nothing Congress.

 

[Expat]

The Republicans are determined to do whatever they have to, to avoid another government shutdown. The Democrats are NOT going to allow any meaningful cuts. Reid has shown they simply will not be brought up for a vote. So that left them little choice. The accepted thought seems to be, if they stay out of the way, the Dems are going to collapse under the weight of Obamacare in the upcoming midterm elections.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

If I were a republican I would do all that I could to avoid another shutdown. The way Obamacare is going to implode over the next year all the republicans have to do is avoid negative rep and they're good! The democrats will be on the defensive big time once people begin to understand how screwed up it is. This hasn't happened yet but it will come tax time 2015.

That said, I would NOT under any circumstances roll back any part of the sequester! That is the best part of the budget over the last many years. It is a small step in the right direction. We need more and larger steps just like it, but for now it is going in a good direction.

The problem the republicans have is that there is within them a wing that claims to be fiscally responsible but spends like drunken sailors when it comes to the military and national defense! More aircraft carriers, more tanks, more guns, more missiles, more drones, more computers for spying, more more more.

What they fail to realize is that you cannot have the strongest military on earth if you do not have the strongest economy on earth. Not happening.

Who knows, maybe this is for the best...??? Perhaps the sooner we collapse economically and enter a massive depression devaluing everything - the sooner we will be able to start rebuilding in a more intelligent and stable manner???

Regards,

Doug

 

[ViperJock]

To All,

If I were a republican I would do all that I could to avoid another shutdown. The way Obamacare is going to implode over the next year all the republicans have to do is avoid negative rep and they're good! The democrats will be on the defensive big time once people begin to understand how screwed up it is. This hasn't happened yet but it will come tax time 2015.

That said, I would NOT under any circumstances roll back any part of the sequester! That is the best part of the budget over the last many years. It is a small step in the right direction. We need more and larger steps just like it, but for now it is going in a good direction.

The problem the republicans have is that there is within them a wing that claims to be fiscally responsible but spends like drunken sailors when it comes to the military and national defense! More aircraft carriers, more tanks, more guns, more missiles, more drones, more computers for spying, more more more.

What they fail to realize is that you cannot have the strongest military on earth if you do not have the strongest economy on earth. Not happening.

Who knows, maybe this is for the best...??? Perhaps the sooner we collapse economically and enter a massive depression devaluing everything - the sooner we will be able to start rebuilding in a more intelligent and stable manner???

Regards,

Doug

Agree. Let the liberal platform fail, win elections, make changes when you actually have the votes to back up your words. Best way to do that now is stay out of the limelight.

The way I see it is, if it works--you have more conservative votes and you can repeal stuff you don't like.

If it doesn't work, the Libs will take over and pass legislation to destroy us all.

Really nothing to lose lose at this point by fighting this type of thing. Just serve to thin your own ranks.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Sequestration was initially a Republican idea that the Dems supported because the WH and Dems were so sure their economic reforms were going to work and it would be easy to cut spending in a booming economy. Well...guess what - didn't happen. Now congress is so polarized they can't "come together" on spending cuts - as it was supposed to work - force the two sides to get along or draconian non-thinking slash and cut across the board would happen. Neither party believed congress would let that happen - it's so terrible - such a stupid way to go about cutting budget spending - surely cooler heads would prevail and a more sensible approach to spending cuts would be supported. [loud annoying buzzer sound] Didn't happen.

Sequestration is an idiotic way to handle cutting any budget - you wouldn't do it. If your income was cut you wouldn't cut back on medication the same rate as say eating out. You would keep your much needed medication and cut eating out entirely if necessary. That's the beauty of it - it's so stupid no one in their right mind would let it happen. Well, they did. And they're still doing it. Both sides are still playing politics and the American tax payer is getting the shaft.

 

[spec4]

'This is probably a good strategy move on Ryan's part. We do get 23 billion over ten years, a drop in the bucket but still... The GOP couldn't afford a fight on this going into 2014. The Dems would demonize then into the election season (See: Susan Fluke, etc.) Personally, I grant Ryan sainthood for being able to work with the dim witted socialist Murray.

 

[findingZzero]

Can't we all just get along (as we spend like drunken sailors)?

 

[zippy23]

I think we all need to realize one thing, the democrats will not budge one bit. The republicans dont want anything taking the heat off obamacare, another gov't shut down would take the focus off the democrats destroying everyone's health care, they are playing it safe, keeping quiet and letting the news continue to cover obamacare. Very smart. Another shut down would completely take away the steam they have right now. Niether party wants to budge, so they both get spending, yeah it sucks for the tax payer, but at least its not plain awful, and the heat is still on the idiot liberals right now. They need to ride this out as long as they can, and obamacare will only get worse, this is their ticket to win in 2014, plus, if you are in washington and have 1/3 of the gov't, you wont get anything done without giving something, thats they way it works, i applaud them(only right now) for keeping the focus on obamacare.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Sequestration is an idiotic way to handle cutting any budget - you wouldn't do it. If your income was cut you wouldn't cut back on medication the same rate as say eating out. You would keep your much needed medication and cut eating out entirely if necessary. That's the beauty of it - it's so stupid no one in their right mind would let it happen. Well, they did. And they're still doing it. Both sides are still playing politics and the American tax payer is getting the shaft.

No, I don't agree with that analogy at all. Here's why: what if your hypothetical household medication budget contains _waste_? You see, in government, your "eating out" IS someone else's "medication," and every single bit of it contains waste.

It's hard to think of anything government does that doesn't contain waste. When you spare certain areas from cuts, you create political "favorites," sacred-cow programs which are above scrutiny and assumed to be without waste (which is really just another way of saying - they're politically popular and untouchable). Nobody in government will admit "their" kingdom contains waste. The only way you force them to "find it," is to tell them they get 5% less next year - and see what they choose to do without. They will show you where their waste is...but not if you don't ask them; every single one of them.

Making it "dumb," making it across the board, is precisely how you avoid all the political favoritism and game-playing: nobody is immune. When you announce that any given area is off-limits for cuts, you've just declared a political favorite. When you handle cuts this way, every sector of government jockeys for position to be that favorite. You cannot subtract the politics out of it; politicians, agencies, bureaucrats, and ultimately the staff themselves are political animals. The only way you can drive down waste is to make them all equally affected by the cuts. Otherwise, it's just a big high school popularity contest, to see who gets "voted off the island" - the suits start lining up on Capitol Hill, and the arm-twisting begins. There was NEVER A TIME IN AMERICA when it wasn't this way. Read that again. This is how our country works. This is how it has always worked. 200 years of this business as usual, is how we got where we are now, trying to "inflate" our way out of a debt that can never be paid off, shrinking the value of our money as our wages stagnate, impoverishing us in our old age and mortgaging our children to their eyeballs.

What you call "dumb" about the Sequestration approach, is precisely what's brilliantly, brutally intelligent about it. If we asked 100 different people on INGO to rank government programs in order of importance, you'd get 100 different answers. There is no "smart" way, because there's 100 different definitions of smart. There is only the efficient way, or ten thousand different inefficient ways.

Am I assuming every area of government contains waste? You bet I am. Surely, you're not going to sit here and tell me the military has been cut to the bone, and contains no waste...are you? Remember, the Pentagon budget contains a LOT of money that no soldier will _ever_ see. It's wasted in the form of contracts where we agree to buy 32 ships...then settle for delivery of only three, because cost overruns and endless design changes ate up the other 29 ships' worth of budget (plus more - research the Zumwalt Class Destroyer program for one example, there are many more). Every weapons program in the military has some level of this going on. When you exempt one government function like the military - or even just a section of it - you're playing a game.

Politicians think the Sequester cuts are dumb - because politicians cannot play political games with it. Replace the Sequester with something "smarter," then just watch the hyenas materialize out of the grass, lining up to jockey for position with "their" priorities. If that's smart - put me down for the "dumb" way.

 

[Libertarian01]

To JerimiahJohnson & Twangbanger (et alia),

In general I agree with Jerimiah. In a perfect system you would analyze the situation, look at where you are spending the most money for the least value, and cut in intelligent and focused areas.

What many fail to remember is that Congress HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND BLEW IT HUGE! It was called the "Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction" and sequestration was the guillotine that was going to drop on the entire budget IF they didn't come to an agreement on intelligent cuts. They could not do it. Then both sides whined and cried like little children as each watched programs they liked cut without regard to value or waste. They were supposed to cut, they were expected to cut. Sequestration was the monster on the other side of the river that was going to come over if they didn't cut $1.2 Trillion over the next ten (10) years. By the way, that is only $120 Billion per year on a $2.469 Trillion budget in 2012. As an analogy, if a family made $50,000 per year they would need to cut $2,430. That is not what I think of as an impossible task by any stretch.

Yet, for democrats and republicans it was an impossible task. The Joint Committee failed to come to an agreement and the sequestration followed.

Jerimiah, I agree with you that it would have been better to make intelligent cuts. Regrettably, our elected officials were unable to do that. So I will stand by my thought that sequestration is a positive step in the right direction - given that the alternative of continuing to increase spending without limitation.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hornadylnl]

To JerimiahJohnson & Twangbanger (et alia),

In general I agree with Jerimiah. In a perfect system you would analyze the situation, look at where you are spending the most money for the least value, and cut in intelligent and focused areas.

What many fail to remember is that Congress HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND BLEW IT HUGE! It was called the "Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction" and sequestration was the guillotine that was going to drop on the entire budget IF they didn't come to an agreement on intelligent cuts. They could not do it. Then both sides whined and cried like little children as each watched programs they liked cut without regard to value or waste. They were supposed to cut, they were expected to cut. Sequestration was the monster on the other side of the river that was going to come over if they didn't cut $1.2 Trillion over the next ten (10) years. By the way, that is only $120 Billion per year on a $2.469 Trillion budget in 2012. As an analogy, if a family made $50,000 per year they would need to cut $2,430. That is not what I think of as an impossible task by any stretch.

Yet, for democrats and republicans it was an impossible task. The Joint Committee failed to come to an agreement and the sequestration followed.

Jerimiah, I agree with you that it would have been better to make intelligent cuts. Regrettably, our elected officials were unable to do that. So I will stand by my thought that sequestration is a positive step in the right direction - given that the alternative of continuing to increase spending without limitation.

Regards,

Doug

If we can't cut a harpist or cellist on the federal payroll, what can we cut? Nothing.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How exasperating...There is always another election around the corner, vulnerable seats to protect or go after (for the other party). I get the logic, I understand why, but when will it ever be "time"?

 

[hornadylnl]

How exasperating...There is always another election around the corner, vulnerable seats to protect or go after (for the other party). I get the logic, I understand why, but when will it ever be "time"?

As long as there is a vote attached to every dollar, it will never be "time". Look how many sacred cows exist on this forum alone. At least we have a federal band to continue playing while the USS Titanic is sinking.

 

[mrjarrell]

Old Bonehead Boehner is mouthing off again. He dislikes the fact that there are people out there who find this BS bill of Ryan's to be unacceptable. He and his cohorts just want to keep kicking the can down the road and maintain the status quo. Disgusting.

Boehner Lashes Out at Anti-Spending Groups Fighting Budget - SFGate

 

[netsecurity]

Hornadyl, MrJarrell, you guys are right about the fact that both parties will spend until we go bankrupt if we let them, because both of the lifelong members of congress have learned to line their pockets with every bill. Term limits would likely reduce this sort of back scratching. There should also be a law that, when the government is deficit spending, they cannot add any more government programs, especially ones that cost trillions like Obamacare.

What I continue to disagree with you about is the Tea Party. They stand primarily for reducing government spending, and smaller government roles in our lives, which are the same philosophies you espouse. Yet you slander them as wingnuts at every turn. They are the best hope we have at getting a handle on this run away government, and you should support them, whether they have an L or an R designation. If you hate them because the religious Right is involved, I don't understand why you cannot ignore minor issues that you disagree with (i.e. right to life), and look at the big picture. Allies are allies, and all alliances have always been imperfect. We can argue about the minutiae AFTER the progressives are defeated!

 

[mrjarrell]

Stockman has even called the republicrats out on this terrible deal.
Stockman: GOP made budget deal a 'joke and betrayal'

 

[mrjarrell]

Hornadyl, MrJarrell, you guys are right about the fact that both parties will spend until we go bankrupt if we let them, because both of the lifelong members of congress have learned to line their pockets with every bill. Term limits would likely reduce this sort of back scratching. There should also be a law that, when the government is deficit spending, they cannot add any more government programs, especially ones that cost trillions like Obamacare.

What I continue to disagree with you about is the Tea Party. They stand primarily for reducing government spending, and smaller government roles in our lives, which are the same philosophies you espouse. Yet you slander them as wingnuts at every turn. They are the best hope we have at getting a handle on this run away government, and you should support them, whether they have an L or an R designation. If you hate them because the religious Right is involved, I don't understand why you cannot ignore minor issues that you disagree with (i.e. right to life), and look at the big picture. Allies are allies, and all alliances have always been imperfect. We can argue about the minutiae AFTER the progressives are defeated!

Sorry, net, but there's no deal on my side where the TEA Party is concerned anymore. They started out with my wholehearted support for their stances on limiting government and lowering taxes, but they've decided that jeebus, statism and the religious right are more important to them than liberty, smaller government and lower taxes. That's a non starter for me. If they had maintained their stance on social issues (having no stance on them) that they began with then they'd still have my support, but I've seen, right here in Indiana and across the nation, what they've become and I, (and most libertarians I know) want nothing to do with them. Add in the fact that they let themselves be co-opted by the likes of Beck, Armey and the gop and I have no use for them. Hell, even here in Indiana the TEA Party got taken over by statist religious right dolts and drove out the libertarians and many others who were there from day 1. If they ever decide to go back to their roots, I might change my mind on them, till then...screw 'em. They're part of the problem, now.

 

[Denny347]

To JerimiahJohnson & Twangbanger (et alia),

In general I agree with Jerimiah. In a perfect system you would analyze the situation, look at where you are spending the most money for the least value, and cut in intelligent and focused areas.

What many fail to remember is that Congress HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND BLEW IT HUGE! It was called the "Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction" and sequestration was the guillotine that was going to drop on the entire budget IF they didn't come to an agreement on intelligent cuts. They could not do it. Then both sides whined and cried like little children as each watched programs they liked cut without regard to value or waste. They were supposed to cut, they were expected to cut. Sequestration was the monster on the other side of the river that was going to come over if they didn't cut $1.2 Trillion over the next ten (10) years. By the way, that is only $120 Billion per year on a $2.469 Trillion budget in 2012. As an analogy, if a family made $50,000 per year they would need to cut $2,430. That is not what I think of as an impossible task by any stretch.

Yet, for democrats and republicans it was an impossible task. The Joint Committee failed to come to an agreement and the sequestration followed.

Jerimiah, I agree with you that it would have been better to make intelligent cuts. Regrettably, our elected officials were unable to do that. So I will stand by my thought that sequestration is a positive step in the right direction - given that the alternative of continuing to increase spending without limitation.

Regards,

Doug

You explained what I was trying to in another post, beautifully...as usual.