This is evil, and I love it (aka how to get rid of Paul Ryan...)

[Twangbanger]

...I don't think sequestration, the original, would have actually worked. The sacrifices necessary would require commitment by the American people that I don't think we can muster...

That is utter baloney. The Sequester wouldn't have worked because the "American people" lacked the commitment? There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever of that. The truth is, the "American people" forgot all about it. It passed largely without notice in the streets, strip mall Mexican restaurants, and living rooms of America.

...I doubt very many attendees to Trump's rallies could explain sequestration...

Two years into it, MOST Americans could not remember what the term "Sequestration" even meant. "We" were not clamoring for it to be ended, because it was a complete non-issue to most average people. In truth, the only panties getting bunched up about it were in Washington, and among a handful of people in its satellite outposts on the East Coast. That's where "Sequester Outrage" was being manufactured. Because it crimped the careers of the political elites by limiting (by a tiny amount) their ability to buy votes.

To sum up, 1) it was in place, 2) it was working, and 3) it was nowhere on the Average American's radar screen. Just think about that for a minute. That's my definition of successful policy! One which works, without the greater mass of Americans really noticing, caring, or even really hurting all that much. The "sacrifice," such as it was, was being made. But hardly anybody in the broad cross-section of society noticed.

Do not give me this claptrap about the "American people" lacking the discipline for the Sequester. You meant "American Political Elites." Our financial sustainability is simply being sold down the river to bankroll their current capacity to buy votes and further their careers.

 

[T.Lex]

Skipping the math because... math. But, I totally believe you guys.

The Sequester wouldn't have worked because the "American people" lacked the commitment? There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever of that. The truth is, "Americans" forgot all about it. It passed largely without notice in the streets, strip mall Mexican restaurants, and living rooms of America.

Two years into it, MOST Americans could not remember what the term "Sequestration" even meant. "We" were not clamoring for it to be ended, because it was a non-issue. In truth, the only panties getting bunched up about it were in Washington and among a handful of people in its satellite outposts on the East Coast. That's where "Sequester Outrage" was being manufactured - because it crimped the careers of the political elites by limiting (by a tiny amount) their ability to buy votes.

haha

All of which, you also have no evidence of.

The problems - and benefits - were all speculative, yes. But faced with the real risk of inflation, an already weak economy, and I'm sure they all know the real unemployment numbers, Sequestration 1.0 would've been political suicide. So the question becomes, extend it out with the current elected officials or wait to get unelected and have the new people do it.

Do not give me this claptrap about the "American people" lacking the discipline for the Sequester. You meant "American Political Elites." Our financial sustainability is simply being sold down the river to bankroll their current capacity to buy votes and further their careers.

Effectively, it is the same thing. Sequestration 2.0 is better than non-Sequester - I think we can both agree on that at least?

Also, going back to the "gut Obamacare" thing, I'm pretty sure the votes weren't there. Someone may have to remind me, but that's what I recall.

 

[Twangbanger]

...All of which, you also have no evidence of. ...

Even those tasked with manufacturing "Sequestration Outrage" admit it wasn't moving the needle of public opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/02/26/the-sequester-never-heard-of-it/

It was not "political suicide." It was a non-issue to the American public.

...if you don't like that, I'll leave it to you to present your own information to the contrary.

 

[T.Lex]

Even those tasked with manufacturing "Sequestration Outrage" admit it wasn't moving the needle of public opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/02/26/the-sequester-never-heard-of-it/

...if you don't like that, I'll leave it to you to present your own information to the contrary.

Yeah, I should've been clearer. The percentage of the public concerned about Sequestration itself is probably about the same as could find Georgia (the one near Russia) on a map. Heck, probably the same percentage of "man on the street" that could spell "sequestration" on the first try.

My larger point was that, just a few years into the Great Recession (or whatever we're calling it), and with the Greek austerity issues fresh on people's minds, there were many smart and relatively impartial people predicting some significant negative consequences.

An example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ans-are-feeling-the-effects-of-the-sequester/

BTW, those numbers (just 3 months later) disagree with your link, but that's not even really the issue. The belief that the negatives would accelerate and compound each other was the motivator for 2.0.

 

[Twangbanger]

...there were many smart and relatively impartial people predicting some significant negative consequences.

An example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ans-are-feeling-the-effects-of-the-sequester/

BTW, those numbers (just 3 months later) disagree with your link, but that's not even really the issue. The belief that the negatives would accelerate and compound each other was the motivator for 2.0.

So, according to that link, the National Head Start Foundation, White House, Bloomberg, CNN, Huffpo, Harvard Kennedy School, Federal Courts, and some state government people, think Sequester was a fearsome thing?

That's hardly an "impartial" group. That is the Engineer, Stoker, Brake man, and Conductor of the Gravy Train.

That much huffing and puffing about a 5% biopsy from the Federal Tit, to get 1 in 3 Americans to "follow" the Sequester when it's being talked about top-page every day for a week, buttresses my assertion: the political unpalatability of those 5% cuts resides in the minds of the Eastern Political Elite, not the American public.

 

[BugI02]

I think you would also need some way to cleave multi-year programs in real time, as in total F35 funding authorized is reduced 5%. Otherwise you get the vaporsavings of extending the buy window so that current fiscal funding appears to be cut but the product actually becomes more expensive. Then (if they follow the F22 path) the product becomes so expensive that you have near 20% cost overruns on the initial budgeted program and you end production having given the services significantly less than they paid for, but having lined your own pockets

There are just so many revenue streams like this you are probably looking at a large new fed bureaucracy to ride herd on things and then Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Take Obamacare, mentioned upthread. The longer that particular Frankenstein monster is on its feet, the greater its 'constituency' and the harder it will be to kill. It is obviously built to fail so it can be replaced with single payer. Wringing five percent out of expenditures against passive/aggressive legislative resistance would be an olympian task. So where to start, get out the cleaver or convince the populace of the necessity

That's why I think the cut has to be all at once and absolutely across the board - visible shared sacrifice

Then the even harder part is keeping legislators/lobbyists from spending the savings elsewhere or stealthily restoring the cuts. A daunting task for which I can only position the endpoints, I have no idea how to realistically connect the dots. As much as I am for Trump this goround he has nowhere near the favorable/unfavorable numbers to pull something like this off. Rational expectation would be he can make a start on the process and realistically the politician who could finish it hasn't stepped onto the stage yet

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Donald Trump endorsed House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Sen. John McCain on Friday, moving to mend an intra-party rift that has put the Republican presidential nominee at odds with its highest-ranking elected official.Trump's endorsements came at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

"We will have disagreements, but we will disagree as friends and never stop working together toward victory. And very importantly, toward real change," Trump said, reading off a prepared statement. "So in our shared mission, to make America great again, I support and endorse our speaker of the House, Paul Ryan."
Trump earlier in the week had declined to endorse Ryan and McCain, as well as New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
"And while I'm at it, I hold in the highest esteem Sen. John McCain for his service to our country in uniform and in public office, and I fully support and endorse his re-election," said Trump, before backing Ayotte.

Donald Trump endorses Paul Ryan, John McCain - CNNPolitics.com

I guess Ryan is cool again? I dunno, two weeks ago Trump wanted to form a PAC against Cruz. Then Pence is endorsing him but Trump's not quite there yet. Now, about two weeks later, Cruz is a good man and has Trump's endorsement.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Perhaps if it keeps happening the establishment folks might turn a bit more conservative?

wasn't Newt an establishment guy when he was speaker and gave us the Contract with America? I recall those as good times.

Mccain needs to go away. I guarantee he pictures himself dying in office and a huge state funeral like for teddy kennedy

Who do you think would be any better???

Not trying to start something, I just think an establishment guy being booted would be replaced by another establishment guy...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Skipping the math because... math. But, I totally believe you guys.


haha

All of which, you also have no evidence of.

The problems - and benefits - were all speculative, yes. But faced with the real risk of inflation, an already weak economy, and I'm sure they all know the real unemployment numbers, Sequestration 1.0 would've been political suicide. So the question becomes, extend it out with the current elected officials or wait to get unelected and have the new people do it.


Effectively, it is the same thing. Sequestration 2.0 is better than non-Sequester - I think we can both agree on that at least?

Also, going back to the "gut Obamacare" thing, I'm pretty sure the votes weren't there. Someone may have to remind me, but that's what I recall.

"Votes" don't need to be there in the Senate nor a Presidential signature to present a budget which doesn't fund ObamaCare. All it required was enough votes in the House to pass such a budget and the guts to stand on that budget - the way the Democrats fought for theirs when they controlled the House. Republican Party said they were going to do that and they didn't even try; they caved to the Democrats' threats to paint them as "obstructionists." Throw out all the rats in leadership.

 

[Twangbanger]

I think you would also need some way to cleave multi-year programs in real time, as in total F35 funding authorized is reduced 5%. Otherwise you get the vaporsavings of extending the buy window so that current fiscal funding appears to be cut but the product actually becomes more expensive. Then (if they follow the F22 path) the product becomes so expensive that you have near 20% cost overruns on the initial budgeted program and you end production having given the services significantly less than they paid for, but having lined your own pockets

There are just so many revenue streams like this you are probably looking at a large new fed bureaucracy to ride herd on things and then Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Take Obamacare, mentioned upthread. The longer that particular Frankenstein monster is on its feet, the greater its 'constituency' and the harder it will be to kill. It is obviously built to fail so it can be replaced with single payer. Wringing five percent out of expenditures against passive/aggressive legislative resistance would be an olympian task. So where to start, get out the cleaver or convince the populace of the necessity

That's why I think the cut has to be all at once and absolutely across the board - visible shared sacrifice

Then the even harder part is keeping legislators/lobbyists from spending the savings elsewhere or stealthily restoring the cuts. A daunting task for which I can only position the endpoints, I have no idea how to realistically connect the dots. As much as I am for Trump this goround he has nowhere near the favorable/unfavorable numbers to pull something like this off. Rational expectation would be he can make a start on the process and realistically the politician who could finish it hasn't stepped onto the stage yet

You're making an eloquent and detailed case for exactly why "smart, targeted cuts" do not work: they get "targeted" to initiatives which aren't popular, while the popular ones survive untouched, and expand to occupy the funding space vacated by the unpopular ones, next cycle around.

"Smart Cuts" is just a way of saying: "Our goal is to trim unpopular programs - so that popular ones can spend more."

Only "dumb" cuts - indiscriminate ones - have any chance of reducing the Federal Government. The indiscriminate nature of them is the whole key to the concept. "Smart, Targeted Cuts" are the tool for "Good Government," but such government is rarely smaller. If you want _smaller_ government, the cuts have to be "dumb."

 

[two70]

Seriously, now were going after Paul Ryan? We really are in Bizzaro world. Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split between the "purists," and the "realists" factions.

If you consider Ryan to be in the "realist" faction then Democrat-lite would be a better name but I'm not sure very many people vote for it either way. After all if you want more spending/taxes, more government, less freedom and more illegal immigration the Democrats do it better/quicker and the new party couldn't really compete. If you are against most of those things, why would you vote for a party that pursues the same ends but just does it slower than Democrats?

 

[T.Lex]

Going slowly to a bad place is better than going there quickly.

IMHO.

 

[HoughMade]

Going slowly to a bad place is better than going there quickly.

IMHO.

How many times have conservatives claimed that "once people see how bad liberal X is, they'll com back to conservative candidates in droves." Still waiting.

 

[miguel]

Going slowly to a bad place is better than going there quickly.

IMHO.

Not a fan of Cedar Point, then?

 

[T.Lex]

Not a fan of Cedar Point, then?

LOL

Man, I don't think I've been there since I was a kid. But, it still doesn't change my thinking on it.

 

[miguel]

Paul Ryan wins, but he's still a dick smoker in my book.

 

[Twangbanger]

Paul Ryan wins, but he's still a dick smoker in my book.

D!cksmoking is perfect practice for someone about to become the GOP's main Tackling Dummy for President Hillary.

It will be his job to hug her while sliding backwards.

And I expect all these Republicans who say they're voting for Hillary will volunteer to hold his head down for her. (I hope he can breathe through his ears).

Prison Life is tough, Lerch.