So, what's your thoughts on the looming Sequestration crisis? A week is an eternity in politics. PStill plenty of time to deal. The question is, is anyone willing to deal?
Anyone know the Vegas odds on will we or won't we make a deal?
Easy E wrote: So, what's your thoughts on the looming Sequestration crisis? A week is an eternity in politics. PStill plenty of time to deal. The question is, is anyone willing to deal?
Anyone know the Vegas odds on will we or won't we make a deal?
I don't know about that, but I can give you odds on finger pointing by both sides if things fall through.
I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:
- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.
Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Why deal? Ladies its only a cut to GROWTH. The federal government will spend more in 2013 than 2012.
As the immortal bard once said: fire 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
You know a lot of companies when they hit this point default to "everyone is fired until you give a good enough reason otherwise".
The real problem is that the sequesteration doesn't actually affect the parts of spending that are growing uncontrollably, namely entitlements.
So, it affects the actual workings of government, not the transfers of cash to the retired/disabled/poor. So, crazy out of control medicare spending continues unabatted, but the National parks get less funding. Disability checks keep going out, but the process of determining disabilty (my little corner of the Federal government) will slow down.
It'd be great if this hit and the general public didn't suffer at all. I'm not looking forward to furlough days, but I guess it beats losing my job entirely. I think we're going to find that it's going to affect a lot of people, because once you even get into discretionary spending, you have to look at long term contracts (leases and such) that can't be avoided. Salaries for workers are going to be the low hanging fruit.
The congressional-critters are probably more scared that if the sequestration does go through and no one notices it.
See this... are we really that screwed?
OMG how we will survive?!? Surely the moon will now collide with the earth and the Seven Seals will open!
All the fearmongering is not far off from that. Now evidently terrorists and illegal immigrants will suddenl stream across our borders, in contrast to say, Tuesday when terrorists and illegal immigrants were streaming across our borders. SO far I've been told:
*Children will starve.
*Food will now be bad (wait I thought there wouldn't be any food).
*Planes will fall from the sky.
*The military will instantly collapse. The Bahamas will immediately invade us.
*Our borders wil be left unguarded.
*Children will not be educated. Suddenly there will be no police. Houses will burn (protip, thats all state money).
*Houses will not be built. People will be homeless.
*Roads will not be built or maintained and will now instantly collapse.
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
I know that in the federal agency I work for, we'll have to account for about $120 million dollars. Notices have already been sent stating that we'll have to basically get unpaid time off for anywhere from 1 - 14 days by the end of the fiscal year. At least it won't be more than one day per pay period, and we'll even be able to choose the day, too.
In many ways, there's a lot of doom and gloom being thrown around by some agencies using scare tactics by saying how much government services will be impacted (like TSA lines being twice as long as the airports after the cuts). Some of it's true, but some money can be saved by not buying some new equipment this year (but you eventually have to replace old equipment, anyway), but you're still left trying to cut money where you can, and you can't cut it from contracts that have already been signed and committed to for the fiscal year, so that sometimes leaves the personnel account as the only way to save money.
daedalus wrote: I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:
- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.
Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?.
Sort of. The actual situation is more like;
-Everyone says the budget is out of control, but it actually isn't. There's a short term budget deficit, but that's just due to the poor economic position (lower revenues and higher welfare payments), and will fix itself as the economy recovers. The structural deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts has been fixed (through savings cuts and the increase in taxes on the very wealthy). There's a long term budget deficit that is entirely due to rising healthcare costs.
-No-one is willing to even dare talk about the long term healthcare budget problem, let alone fix it. So instead they just try to look all serious and responsible by talking about the present deficit, entirely indifferent to the reality that the savings measures already put in place mean that the issue is already fixed.
-Everyone is upset about being in this bizarre position where there's nothing short term to fix but everyone is absolutely committed to fixing it as soon as possible. Political stupidity ensues.
Yeah, it is unfortunate that the people who get hurt by all the sequestration cuts are not the d-bags who caused it in the first place.
The guys in my unit give til congress loses their aides, and other staffers and have to actually work for once for things to really get done.
So far, and most worrying for us military folks, it looks as though they are trying to not touch our pay, and cut just about everything else, things would end badly i suspect if our pay was actually axed for a while.
During President Barack Obama's meeting with U.S. governors at the White House Monday, the president dismissed members of the press to hold a private, hourlong discussion with the visiting state executives. Whatever was said after the cameras left the room especially incensed South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley.
Haley went across the street to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after the meeting, where she joined fellow Republican Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin in berating both Congress and the Obama administration for failing to agree to an alternative to the looming across-the-board federal budget cuts set to trigger March 1.
"I could not be more frustrated than I am right now," Haley told reporters after the meeting. She said that when she asked Obama if he would consider a last-minute plan to shave about 2 percent from the annual federal budget without increasing taxes, the answer was "no."
"My kids could go and find $83 billion out of a $4 trillion budget," Haley said. "This is not rocket science."
As part of a budget agreement passed in 2011, the federal budget will automatically be reduced on March 1 by about 2.4 percent if a deal isn't reached. Lawmakers had hoped to avoid the reductions by agreeing to more specific cuts from the budget, but talks between Republicans and Democrats have largely fallen apart due to a disagreement over whether tax increases should be part of the package.
Haley also made no effort to spare congressional Republicans, who took last week off with only a few days left before the sequestration process was set to begin.
"There is no leadership. There is no confidence. There is nothing that shows us that they actually care about what they're doing," Haley said. "What they're doing is playing games, and we as the taxpayers are having to cover for their games. We're not going to do it anymore."
Haley also noted that "no one should be going home. No one should be playing golf. No one should be taking vacations."
She later added, "There is something very wrong in this town."
"There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working today who will lose their jobs as a consequence of this Republican decision," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said during a conference call with reporters Sunday afternoon. "This is going to have a very real impact on people's lives and on communities."
The Obama administration has entered the full-court-press stage of its campaign to defeat a measure, known as sequestration, that would slow the rate of growth of federal spending. Its latest tactic is to release a state-by-state analysis claiming the cuts would hit hard in every corner of the country.
Louisiana, for example, would lose $15.8 million in education funds, putting 220 teachers' jobs at risk, according to the White House. Head Start would be eliminated for 1,400 children, and there would be many more cuts in military spending, law enforcement, job training, environmental and other programs.
Wisconsin, to take another example, would lose $8.5 million in education funds under this scenario, putting 120 teachers' jobs at risk, with Head Start eliminated for 900 children, as well as a variety of other cuts.
South Carolina would lose $12.5 million in education funds, the White House said, putting 170 teachers' jobs at risk, with Head Start eliminated for 900, and much, much more.
It just so happened that the Republican governors of Louisiana, Wisconsin and South Carolina were in Washington on Monday for a National Governors Association gathering, which included a session with the president. When reporters asked about that new state-by-state analysis of possible cuts -- which just happened to be released on the eve of the meeting -- the governors saw a White House political trap.
"You all got it in the media before we got those," said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. "So I think it's pretty clear that those were put out for political purposes ... If you were serious about having a discussion with the governors about the implications, you wouldn't give it to the press before you gave it to the governors."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal added that Obama seemed bound and determined to use the sequestration fight to win higher taxes, willing to hold out the prospect of painful cuts to accomplish his goal.
"I think the president is trying to force us into a false choice," Jindal said. "The reality is, there is no reason for these cuts to be made this way." Obama could instruct his Cabinet to emphasize cuts to spending on things like consultants, Jindal said, and not on things like Head Start. "It is the president's job as the chief executive to prioritize."
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said the governors asked Obama to come up with better cuts, or even to delay future spending, like the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, if the budget situation is as dire as the administration says. "The answer to everything we got was no," Haley said.
As the governors spoke, there was a real question of how much flexibility the president has to shape the cuts that are contained in the sequestration measure, which he proposed and signed into law with bipartisan support in 2011. Does Obama have the authority to move money around so government consultants would take more of a hit than Head Start?
Jindal believes so. "Everybody has known that this was coming," he said. "When did [Obama] go to his Cabinet heads and say, 'If you had to make these reductions, what would be the least painful way to do it?' "
There's no indication Obama has done anything to make the cuts easier on the public. To the contrary, it is in his political interest to make the cuts as painful as possible and then blame them on Republicans.
Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear how much leeway Obama has, given that the law orders across-the-board cuts applied to all "programs, projects, and activities" that are not specifically exempted, like entitlement programs and active-duty military staffing. The governors conceded that Obama might need some help from Congress in making the cuts more palatable -- not that the president would ever want to do that.
At one point, Haley called the whole situation "frustrating" and "bothersome." And in the end, the governors sounded like people who had not only had it with Obama but were also unwilling to defend their party's leaders in the House and Senate. "We're not here speaking on behalf of Republicans on the Hill," Walker said. "We're speaking on behalf of Republican governors. And the contrast is, we're providing leadership, balancing budgets, and doing it without raising taxes."
daedalus wrote: I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:
- Budget is unsustainably out of control.
- Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years.
- Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.
Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?.
Sort of. The actual situation is more like;
-Everyone says the budget is out of control, but it actually isn't. There's a short term budget deficit, but that's just due to the poor economic position (lower revenues and higher welfare payments), and will fix itself as the economy recovers. The structural deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts has been fixed (through savings cuts and the increase in taxes on the very wealthy). There's a long term budget deficit that is entirely due to rising healthcare costs.
-No-one is willing to even dare talk about the long term healthcare budget problem, let alone fix it. So instead they just try to look all serious and responsible by talking about the present deficit, entirely indifferent to the reality that the savings measures already put in place mean that the issue is already fixed.
-Everyone is upset about being in this bizarre position where there's nothing short term to fix but everyone is absolutely committed to fixing it as soon as possible. Political stupidity ensues.
This is pretty accurate.
Generally, when there are a bunch of narratives for a political event in the US, the one that is kind of boring and sounds like an econ lecture is usually the real one.
daedalus wrote: I had to read up on this. I still don't feel like I fully understand it, so be patient and help me out here:
- Budget is unsustainably out of control. - Because we can't rectify the budget being out of control, spending for defense and "domestic discretionary spending" (whatever that is) gets cut over the next 10 years. - Everyone is upset about this, because no one is happy with a budget less than the one that's unsustainibly out of control.
Oh, and bonus round: The majority of people who are upset about this have the power to either just fix the damn budget, or, if they STILL can't agree and are unhappy with the above, push the date in which this occurs back arbitrarily again?.
Sort of. The actual situation is more like;
-Everyone says the budget is out of control, but it actually isn't. There's a short term budget deficit, but that's just due to the poor economic position (lower revenues and higher welfare payments), and will fix itself as the economy recovers. The structural deficit caused by the Bush tax cuts has been fixed (through savings cuts and the increase in taxes on the very wealthy). There's a long term budget deficit that is entirely due to rising healthcare costs.
-No-one is willing to even dare talk about the long term healthcare budget problem, let alone fix it. So instead they just try to look all serious and responsible by talking about the present deficit, entirely indifferent to the reality that the savings measures already put in place mean that the issue is already fixed.
-Everyone is upset about being in this bizarre position where there's nothing short term to fix but everyone is absolutely committed to fixing it as soon as possible. Political stupidity ensues.
This is pretty accurate.
Generally, when there are a bunch of narratives for a political event in the US, the one that is kind of boring and sounds like an econ lecture is usually the real one.
Its accurate, oh wait its not. -Its not a short term deficit problem. Under the El Jeff'e's own forecasts its $1Bn + deficits annually FOREVER. Care to see what the interest payment looks like in 2020? -You're forgetting that issue about a downgrade and another threatened by end of year. -Healthcare is separate but yes its an issue. Obamacare is going to add $8Trillion to the debt. Who's it helping again? My rates are jumping.
1. Sequestration cuts of $85 billion are impossibly painful, the equivalent of asking Uncle Sam to perform an appendectomy on himself with a nail file, but
2. ObamaCare adding $6.2 trillion to the deficit - nearly 75 times the size of the sequester - is no big deal...
Frazzled wrote: Its accurate, oh wait its not.
-Its not a short term deficit problem. Under the El Jeff'e's own forecasts its $1Bn + deficits annually FOREVER. Care to see what the interest payment looks like in 2020?
I won't just see what the payments are, I'll show you the 30 year trend;
My God! If we do nothing then payments will be slightly less than they were in 1990! Remember how that was resolved through a series of reforms and policy adjustments... well we'll have to do slightly less of that!
-You're forgetting that issue about a downgrade and another threatened by end of year.
Which is a serious and important issue to people who read newspaper headlines but have never actually looked at any numbers in their lives. After the last downgrade... US borrowing rates decreased.
-Healthcare is separate but yes its an issue. Obamacare is going to add $8Trillion to the debt. Who's it helping again? My rates are jumping.
Healthcare isn't an issue, it's the issue. Sequestration is an effort to demand cuts gets made to small parts of the budget that simply aren't a part of the long term deficit problem. It's political theatre.
1. Sequestration cuts of $85 billion are impossibly painful, the equivalent of asking Uncle Sam to perform an appendectomy on himself with a nail file, but
2. ObamaCare adding $6.2 trillion to the deficit - nearly 75 times the size of the sequester - is no big deal...
See what I mean?
Look at it like this - in 1980 Reagan cut taxes. He even said that through the magic of the Laffer Curve revenue wouldn't drop (no-one believed that, not even him I expect but anyway...)
From there you've got fifteen years of steady deficit growth, and while lots of prominent people make lots of noise and fuss about it, no-one quite ever thinks about saying maybe that taxes ought to go back to what they were when the debt was under control.
Clinton comes to office, and now all of a sudden there's all kinds of fuss and bother about the deficit. Clinton cuts a deal with the Republicans, spending is cut and the social safety net is reduced, you see surpluses and a decrease in total debt.
Then Bush comes to office, and well if cutting taxes was what Reagan did then Bush is gonna do it to (I think there was even talk about the Laffer Curve again). Oh look, now there's deficits again. Oh well, people made noise about it a little, but not enough to stop two wars and a massive expansion of healthcare through the pharmaceuticals bill.
The Obama comes to office, in the wake of the GFC. Now without even doing anything the deficit has gotten even worse than under Bush (massive drops in tax revenues and increases in social payments will do that). Never mind that the single dumbest thing you can do in recession is cut government spending, now all of a sudden the deficit is the big concern again... and the savings must all be found through spending. There was one compromised deal that made up soem ground through a part repeal of Bush's tax cut and some savings cuts... and now there's another demand that it must be done again.
It doesn't matter that structurally, once we account for a return to full economic activity, the short term structural deficit is gone. It doesn't matter that the driver behind the long term deficit projections are all through the unsustainable health care costs... but what is demanded is yet another cut to welfare spending.
If the 30 year political strategy isn't clear by now, I don't know how much more obvious the Republicans can make it. They even talk about the plan, and even gave it a catchy little name. It's called 'starve the beast'.
In fact if you don't believe me, and you're up for another bet I've got a good one for you - next Republican to win the presidency will have as part of his platform a significant cut to taxes. It may not come in his first term, as the economy won't be healthy enough for that to fly, but it will come. And from there we'll see deficits again, and all of a sudden Republicans will demand the budget be brought back under control, and they will insist this happens through cuts to spending.
I just find the switch in the GOP talking points pretty interesting over the last week. They are really turning from the "these cuts will be a thread to everyone, people will get fired, this will be bad" message and trying to present a unified "it's small, it's good, we will manage just fine".
Which is understandable. If "cutting government" ends up bad for people then the "cutting government" party will probably not look so good during the next elections.
Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I just find the switch in the GOP talking points pretty interesting over the last week. They are really turning from the "these cuts will be a thread to everyone, people will get fired, this will be bad" message and trying to present a unified "it's small, it's good, we will manage just fine".
Which is understandable. If "cutting government" ends up bad for people then the "cutting government" party will probably not look so good during the next elections.
The hysteria is just the same flip flop that the (D) went through when it was proposed/voted on...
whembly wrote: Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.
There are some serious problems with Hillary as a candidate, not the least of which is her age - she'd be the second-oldest president elected.
Besides, my bet is, unless Obama does some totally incredible last minute action, that a Repuiblican will be elected. I think after 8 years of a president of any party, there is a very real fatigue that is likely to set in. Of course, it's still possible that Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as is their wont, but I sure wouldn't bet on it, not in 2013.
whembly wrote: Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.
That's why I said 'next Republican to win'. Which may not be 2016 (though Clinton is no certainty to run, and no certainty to win). Point being that sooner or later a Republican will win, and when they do I am betting a major tax cut will be one of the key elements of their platform, and once it is in place we will predictably see rising deficits, and some time after that (likely once a Democrat retakes the presidency) we will see a sudden concern over the deficit once again.
Did you read the rest of my answer? Did it put any kind of perspective on this, and why the 'OMG deficit is out of control' and we have to cut 2% right now is really just a load of nonsense?
I'm mostly upset we aren't cutting more honestly, and that these clowns in congress voted themselves a pay raise when they're clearly too incompetent to do their jobs.
I didn't even have to gut the military or medicare/social security too badly. The important stuff on the military side (blue forces, Navy/Airforce) keep up at proper levels (hard to build ships in a hurry if the excrement hits the high speed impeller), etc
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'm mostly upset we aren't cutting more honestly, and that these clowns in congress voted themselves a pay raise when they're clearly too incompetent to do their jobs.
No, seriously, read what I posted please. This idea of the US needing massive cuts is just political nonsense.
Everyone can. The problem being that no one person is King of Budget, free to pick and choose what he personally wants. Instead any specific cut not only needs majority approval, but to overcome the vested interests of those who benefit most. Classic example is farm subsidies - they benefit very few and so most are happy to cut them, but good luck pushing that through with the support of rural based representatives.
whembly wrote: Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I just find the switch in the GOP talking points pretty interesting over the last week. They are really turning from the "these cuts will be a thread to everyone, people will get fired, this will be bad" message and trying to present a unified "it's small, it's good, we will manage just fine".
Which is understandable. If "cutting government" ends up bad for people then the "cutting government" party will probably not look so good during the next elections.
The hysteria is just the same flip flop that the (D) went through when it was proposed/voted on...
Correct. They both flip flopped and they were both wrong for it. Let's not throw around "no u"s here.
whembly wrote: Naw Seb... next Pres ain't going to be a (R)... Hillary is running... she's got it.
That's why I said 'next Republican to win'. Which may not be 2016 (though Clinton is no certainty to run, and no certainty to win). Point being that sooner or later a Republican will win, and when they do I am betting a major tax cut will be one of the key elements of their platform, and once it is in place we will predictably see rising deficits, and some time after that (likely once a Democrat retakes the presidency) we will see a sudden concern over the deficit once again.
Did you read the rest of my answer? Did it put any kind of perspective on this, and why the 'OMG deficit is out of control' and we have to cut 2% right now is really just a load of nonsense?
Of course I read it as it was all kinds of awesome. Nothing to add really... but, you're taking a realistic view (accounting/business background will do that to you).
But, that's NOT what we're dealing with... putting it succinctly, we're dealing with the "gimmie-dat" generation. I firmly believe things need to be MUCH worse for any real change/fix. The first change would likely be in the HealthCare arena.
Polonius wrote: by gimme dat generation, I assume you mean the Baby Boomers and seniors? that's where the money is going right now.
That certainly would be the most reasonable interpretation. I'd also accept the "I-got-mine generation" as an acceptable alternative.
Personally, I think the best part of this stupid nonsense is everyone pretending it's the other guys fault when the law implementing it was passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. I mean, our politics has ever been a bunch of children covered in poop calling each other stinky, but this case is especially absurd in how overt the hypocrisy is.
The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward attacked President Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying the commander-in-chief’s decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts is “a kind of madness.”
“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’” Woodward said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?” Woodward added. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. ‘I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country.’ That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”
The Pentagon announced earlier this month the U.S.S. Harry Truman, which was supposed to leave for the Persian Gulf, will remain stateside due to budget concerns. The sequester, which will cut billions in defense spending, is scheduled to hit on Friday.
Woodward has become an unlikely conservative hero in recent days for calling out the administration over whether Obama had “moved the goal posts”’ in negotiations over the sequester.
Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oho... did the WH just threaten Woodward? THE Woodward? WTF?
Bob Woodward has revealed that a "senior" White House official warned he would "regret challenging them" with a story about the origin of sequester. Given how Woodward earned his stripes as a reporter, the White House must have felt the issue was very important indeed.
Woodward revealed an email he received from the White House about his sequester story, which argued that the White House had originally proposed the plan and was moving the goal posts for political reasons. Video of an interview Woodward gave to Politico shows him making the claim. He apparently said the same thing on CNN a few hours later.
Earlier in the day, Woodward appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and said what the White House was doing was "a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time." Though he didn't spell out how long, this seemed to be an allusion to the Nixon White House.
Woodward's revelation undercuts the claims made by a number of media figures that the origin of the sequester is inconsequential. Recently, Howard Kurtz proclaimed it a "pointless" argument. Chuck Todd also opined that it was "one of the dumber" arguments. Apparently the White House did not agree and felt strongly enough about it to risk bullying one of the most respected journalists in Washington.
But, to me "gimmie dat generation" are the voters. But, then again... nothing really changed so the current voters need a new name.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything particularly unique in this generation. You think it was different during the Flint strikes? That was just one group trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie, and another group trying to keep it to themselves.
It's why the Republican claims that this or that policy by the Democrats is class warfare are so very silly - there's always class warfare. The workers are always trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie. The employers are always trying to claim a bigger piece of the pie. Human history is the history of 'gimmie dat'.
Just look at the sequestation hysteria... even the GOP Governors are crying about the cuts, when they RAN on lower spending.
They're all hypocrites.
Easy E put it wonderfully - those cuts were supposed to happen to somebody else.
I don't get the whole Woodward angle. I'm not trying to "discredit" him, I'm just not understanding how the House and Senate are going to blame the President for legislation that the majority of them voted for and then advanced to his desk for him to sign. I mean, what is the argument here, exactly? Are they claiming they're totally spineless rubber stamps and pretending that's an improvement over what they were before? Honestly, just baffling.
Ouze wrote: I don't get the whole Woodward angle. I'm not trying to "discredit" him, I'm just not understanding how the House and Senate are going to blame the President for legislation that the majority of them voted for and then advanced to his desk for him to sign. I mean, what is the argument here, exactly? Are they claiming they're totally spineless rubber stamps and pretending that's an improvement over what they were before? Honestly, just baffling.
Yeah... the all voted on it because the believed they could come up with a "Grand Bargain".
I think the WH is upset that Woodward is saying that the sequestration idea came from the WH... contradicting the WH's claim that it was the Republican's idea.
Truth of the matter... the HOUSE and SENATE voted for it... and OBAMA signed it. ALL of them own it.
Indeed. Ultimately, as they all sit around, pointing at each other, poop all over their faces, it doesn't ultimately matter whose idea it was to fling it first. Where we are is kind of the important part, and that is: poopfaced.
Ouze wrote: Indeed. Ultimately, as they all sit around, pointing at each other, poop all over their faces, it doesn't ultimately matter whose idea it was to fling it first. Where we are is kind of the important part, and that is: poopfaced.
If anyone still doubts that the sequestration is all political theatre with absolutely no economic reality underneath it, here's the testimony of Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, from today;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
What I don't understand now... is that the WH and their "allies" are trying to discredit Woodward! It's assinine...
It doesn't make any sense to me as a threat because, honestly, no-one really listens to Woodward anymore. He tried like hell to take down the Bush administration (staked his reputation on the claim that in 2006 or so an attack on Iran was imminent). Any report of a threat against Woodward is far bigger news than what Woodward is actually saying so... I don't know.
I suspect what we've seen is an attempt to manage media reporting that the Obama official screwed up (they're a very modern political organisation and that means media management is intense). The quoted email text sounds like it was an attempt to explain the situation in a more Obama friendly interpretation that got heated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Alright Whembly, you can now go to line 30.
What I don't understand now... is that the WH and their "allies" are trying to discredit Woodward! It's assinine...
It doesn't make any sense to me as a threat because, honestly, no-one really listens to Woodward anymore. He tried like hell to take down the Bush administration (staked his reputation on the claim that in 2006 or so an attack on Iran was imminent). Any report of a threat against Woodward is far bigger news than what Woodward is actually saying so... I don't know.
I suspect what we've seen is an attempt to manage media reporting that the Obama official screwed up (they're a very modern political organisation and that means media management is intense). The quoted email text sounds like it was an attempt to explain the situation in a more Obama friendly interpretation that got heated.
meh... The fact that the WH is taking on Woodward so aggressively, IMO, lends credence to his account.
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Jan Brewer is a woman I would NOT want to cross in any capacity. I want to move back to AZ specifically so I can keep voting for her.
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Jan Brewer is a woman I would NOT want to cross in any capacity. I want to move back to AZ specifically so I can keep voting for her.
What's she like? From afar, she seems like a tough broad.... and wagged that famous finger at the Prez.
Ouze wrote: Apparently all it takes to become an unlikely conservative hero these days is a complete lack of grounding in fiscal reality. Seeing as we have more aircraft carriers then the entire rest of the world, combined, we'll just have to make do somehow.
Next, I hope to see an editorial lambasting President Obama for being "weak on defense" because he won't deploy orbital nuclear weapons just because some piece of paper says he can't.
It's just politics...
Although, I do find it strange that the ICE department is releasing the illegals... Jan Brewer is pissed... but, then again, she seemed pissed a lot lately.
Jan Brewer is a woman I would NOT want to cross in any capacity. I want to move back to AZ specifically so I can keep voting for her.
What's she like? From afar, she seems like a tough broad.... and wagged that famous finger at the Prez.
Up close she's a tougher broad. Gotta consider what state she's running. No wimps allowed on the border, you gotta be ready to kick arse and take names from day one. Especially with the border troubles and minimal help from the federales. *snorts* DHS, useless lot of feth heads.
Don't they know he took down a previous administration? (not that there's really anything in the current one).
I hope they piss him off. It would be nice to have one "lefty" actually start going after Obama. Note: I like Woodward actually. He's usually pretty good at getting inside an administration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Releasing the illegals is crazy and borderline criminal. The WH is saying "we didn't do it." Guess what Edited by Manchu, YOU"RE THE GUYS IN CHARGE.
Don't they know he took down a previous administration? (not that there's really anything in the current one).
I hope they piss him off. It would be nice to have one "lefty" actually start going after Obama. Note: I like Woodward actually. He's usually pretty good at getting inside an administration.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Releasing the illegals is crazy and borderline criminal. The WH is saying "we didn't do it." Guess what Edited by Manchu, YOU"RE THE GUYS IN CHARGE.
NOTABLES CLASH OF THE TITANS: Veteran journalist Bob Woodward is embroiled in an extraordinary public clash with the White House over his reporting on the sequester, reports ABC’s Devin Dwyer. Woodward has been making the rounds accusing a “very senior person” in the administration of threatening him last week ahead of an op-ed he later published in the Washington Post attributing the idea for the automatic spending cuts to President Obama. The blitz drew a harsh rebuke from former senior Obama adviser David Plouffe Wednesday night: “Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated,” he wrote on Twitter. http://abcn.ws/XcphXC
BACKSTORY: In the column at the center of the storm, Woodward writes the White House has been deliberately disingenuous about its role in the sequester, and accused Obama of “moving the goal posts” by insisting Republicans agree to new tax revenue as part of any substitute for the sequester. Woodward’s report has rankled administration officials, particularly since it undermines the narrative the White House has been pushing ahead the March 1 sequester deadline. Democrats claim the automatic cuts were mutually agreed upon and never intended to be enacted, making Obama’s demand for new revenue a legitimate one. Republicans claim the sequester was Obama’s idea and that any replacement plan was to be entirely cuts. Now, Woodward alleges that he was bullied even ahead of publishing his report. He told Politico Wednesday that one Obama aide “yelled at me for about a half hour” and in an email message delivered a veiled threat. “It was said very clearly: ‘you will regret doing this,’” Woodward told CNN. “I’m not going to say [who], a very senior person. It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you’re going to regret doing something you believe in.” http://abcn.ws/XcphXC
WOODWARD AND SPERLING: BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith, citing unnamed sources, first reported last night that the official with whom Woodward had the tense exchange was the director of the White House Economic Council Gene Sperling. BuzzFeed’s story: http://bit.ly/Z0ZXl1 And this morning, Politico released the e-mails in question: http://politi.co/YBLRof
My twittah feed is going nuts over this... not sure why, but they're acting as if all of this is "new", ie: The Bob Woodward story isn’t important. That’s why liberals and the media (PTR) are losing their minds over it.
Remember: They’re not attacking Bob Woodward because they think he’s lying. They’re attacking him because they think he’s telling the truth.
David Freddoso: If you don’t want to be badmouthed, stop saying things unhelpful to our president.
It was one of those real vacationy vacations. Lots of beach, lots of cocktails, little or no news. The most ambitious I got was on the second day, when we rented a golf cart and toured the entire length and breadth of Isla Mujeres — before lunch. If you ever find yourself at the Privilege Aluxes beach bar, order the hot wings (more of a Jamaica jerk than Buffalo) with a side of habanero sauce.
We didn’t get back until well after midnight last night, so it’s with some trepidation that I’m sticking a single toe slowly back into the news and
OMIGOD THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TOWAR AGAINST BOB EFFING WOODWARD???
An infinite and expanding universe is incapable of holding enough popcorn for this show. Imagine Brian Cox joining the Campus Crusade for Christ. Imagine me on a horse with my gentle sidekick, tilting at Glenmorangie. Picture, if you can for just one moment, a day with three or just four links from Instapundit.
All of these things are more likely than a Democrat White House going to war against Bob Woodward. And yet it has happened.
Of course, now is when journalists of every stripe, from far leftwinger to slightly less far leftwinger, will rally ’round the man who inspired each of them to become a journalist! The man who brought down a President!
My, but the crickets do chirp loudly for this time of year.
The long knives will come out for Bob Woodard, mark my words. Richard Nixon had to be destroyed because he created the EPA and ended the war in Vietnam and instituted wage & price controls — while having the gaul to not be a Democrat. And now one of their own is going after Teh Won? He. Must. Be. Destroyed.
It won’t happen, of course. Woodward is too much of an institution, and far too sane join in his own demise. And there’s a good chance that enough of the press still has enough integrity not to join in, either. But don’t listen for many full-throated defenses of Woodward, either — not from the White House Steno Pool, anyway. And already, day and night, the producers and crew at NBC News are deceptively editing old video to make it appear as though it were Woodward who ordered Alderaan to be destroyed, and right after Rachel Maddow had told him everything he wanted to know, too.
So I can’t tell you if I’m this giddy because of eight days of total relaxation, or because of good times spent with my wife and two of our closest and bestest friends, or because of the lingering effects of an irrational number of double-añejo-rum-on-the-rocks. But I can tell you that the White House-Woodward War is the greatest show on earth.
But first I have to put in a bulk order of enough Orville Redenbacher to cover the hot side of Mercury.
Seb covered why most of this sequester nonsense is pointless and stupid. As someone (Whembly?) said, rising medical costs for medicare/medicaid are pretty much the number one issue. The trouble is the the medical insurance lobby has basically gutted the government's ability to negotiate on Medicare costs; they're too afraid medical insurance companies would lose money if Medicare could negotiate. Fixing our disgustingly high medical costs will do more to help the federal deficit than cutting 2.4% ever could. As long as Big Business has its say though, we are thoroughly boned.
I became a federal employee recently, and opted to go with GEHA insurance. Non-profit insurer, which is awesome. They ARE allowed to negotiate, and have amazing benefits.
Fortunately for me, the head of my division saw sequestration coming and stashed away enough of our budget that we will not be furloughed.
1. Obama, despite the media blitz to blame the GOP, actually conceived of and proposed the sequester.
2. Obama, despite now claiming that tax increases must be part of the deal to avoid the sequester, agreed last year that only spending cuts would constitute the plan to avoid the sequester. Thus, he's "moved goalposts" yet again.
3. Obama does not in fact have to release illegal aliens or cancel ship deployments due to the sequester -- he's doing these things by choice, for political purposes.
Since you two cannot play together nicely you can both go to your rooms and think about what you've done. Hey, get out of the cookies! I can't turn my back on you for one minute can I.
Why Bob Woodward's Fight With The White House Matters to You
The fight between the White House and journalistic legend Bob Woodward is a silly distraction to a major problem: The failure of President Obama and House Republicans to lead the country under a budget deadline.
Woodward-gate is a distraction the White House welcomed, even encouraged, as part of a public-relations strategy to emasculate the GOP and anybody else who challenges Obama. It is a distraction that briefly enveloped my reporting last weekend, when I essentially broke ties with a senior White House official.
Yes, I iced a source– and my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. I decided to share this encounter because it might shed light on the increasingly toxic relationship between media and government, which is why the Woodward flap matters outside the Beltway.
On Saturday, White House press secretary Jay Carney accused Woodward of being “willfully wrong” on a story holding the White House accountable for its part in a legislative gimmick called sequestration. (Months ago, the GOP-controlled House passed, and Obama signed, legislation imposing $1.2 trillion in cuts unless an alternative is found by Friday.)
Carney isn’t the first press secretary to criticize a reporter. Presidential aides do it all the time to set the record straight or -- often, more cynically -- to dodge accountability. I was struck by the fact that Carney’s target has a particular history with White House attacks. I tweeted: “Obama White House: Woodward is ‘willfully wrong.' Huh-what did Nixon White House have to say about Woodward?”
Reporting by Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered Watergate misdeeds and led to the resignation of President Nixon. My tweet was not intended to compare Nixon to Obama (there is no reason to doubt Obama’s integrity -- period) but rather to compare the attack to the press strategies of all the presidents’ men.
I had angered the White House, particularly a senior White House official who I am unable to identify because I promised the person anonymity. Going back to my first political beat, covering Bill Clinton’s administration in Arkansas and later in Washington, I’ve had a practice that is fairly common in journalism: A handful of sources I deal with regularly are granted blanket anonymity. Any time we communicate, they know I am prepared to report the information at will (matters of fact, not spin or opinion) and that I will not attribute it to them.
This is an important way to build a transparent and productive relationship between reporters and the people they cover. Nothing chills a conversation faster than saying, “I’m quoting you on this.”
The official angered by my Woodward tweet sent me an indignant e-mail. “What’s next, a Nazi analogy?” the official wrote, chastising me for spreading “bull**** like that” I was not offended by the note, mild in comparison to past exchanges with this official. But it was the last straw in a relationship that had deteriorated.
As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Politico characterized as a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.
Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.
I wrote back:
“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record -- publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.”
I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship. Without the cloak of anonymity, government officials can’t be as open with reporters – they can’t reveal as much information and they can’t explain the nuance and context driving major events.
I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste of my time (and the official’s government-funded salary) to engage in abusive conversations. Second, I didn’t want to condone behavior that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.
That gets to why this matters beyond the incestuous Washington culture. One of this country’s most important traditions is “a free press that isn’t afraid to ask questions, to examine and to criticize,” Obama said at the 2012 White House Correspondents Association’s annual dinner.
Because of tech-fueled changes in the market, there are fewer reporters doing more work with less experience than when I came to Washington with Clinton in 1993. Also, the standard relationship between reporters and their sources is more combative, a reflection of polarization in Washington and within the media industry.
Personally, I had a great relationship with Clinton’s communications team, less so with President Bush's press shop, and now -- for the first time in my career -- I told a public servant to essentially buzz off.
This can’t be what Obama wants. He must not know how thin-skinned and close-minded his staff can be to criticism. “I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you do,” Obama told reporters a year ago. “I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time, and I certainly like to return the favor, but I never forget that our country depends on you.”
Now, obviously Woodward put a stress on Sperling's original comment of 'regret' quite deliberately. Perhaps he didn't mean for it to be taken all the way to 'threat' but he certainly was implying something in that direction. Now he's running away from that, because he realises it makes him look like an idiot.
This is largley because as the greater story is becoming clear, it's becoming obvious that Woodward's analysis is, well, terrible. His idea that any deal to negate sequestration could not include revenue measures is just plain old terrible analysis.
"Woodward’s argument is that Obama agreed that the failure to secure a debt agreement would trigger automatic budget cuts, or sequestration. Since sequestration did not include tax increases, he claims, Obama is “moving the goalposts” by demanding them.
Obama is moving the goalposts in the sense of trying to alter the terms of the automatic sequestration. But then, so are the Republicans, who also want to alter the terms of the automatic cuts. The 2011 agreement was designed to forestall a debt ceiling crisis and force some kind of agreement on the budget later, the parameters of which the two sides would have to contest. Literally nobody involved believes that Obama agreed, in any literal or figurative sense, that a failure to get a deal before the election meant he would give up trying to include revenue. Woodward’s argument is demonstrably absurd."
Don't wait for any of that to impact to Republican noise machine anytime soon. They've got a new story and they're running with it. Because the alternative is to report that Obama has offered up an establishment vetted, centrist position to resolve the sequestration issue, and the Republicans have backed themselves in to a corner where they cannot accept it. Again.
Why Bob Woodward's Fight With The White House Matters to You
The fight between the White House and journalistic legend Bob Woodward is a silly distraction to a major problem: The failure of President Obama and House Republicans to lead the country under a budget deadline.
And here's the fundamental stupidity of the right wing pundit position, expressed perfectly.
I mean, imagine that I want to buy a car, and you want to sell one (imagine as well that I'm only the possible car buyer in the world, and you're the only seller, because I'm bad at analogies). Consider that everyone is looking in on this deal, and they're all in broad agreement that a trade should happen, and it should be for around $20,000, because that's what the car is worth. We start negotiating, and I make all kinds of declarations about how for the sake of the nation and the lives of our children I cannot pay more than $15,000.
You listen to all that, and you offer up a deal of $20,000. I reject this, and say it must be $15,000 or nothing at all.
Then imagine the pundits out there saying 'oh both sides are to blame. They couldn't come to a deal.'
You look at this and think 'what the merry feth? I offered a good, fair deal. That is literally all I can do. I cannot be blamed for failing to close a deal with people who simply don't want a deal, or want a deal so ridiculous it will never happen. At some point those pundits need to stop making noise, and start looking at the substance of the deal in front of them, and realise the deal I'm offering is the deal everyone accepts is the one that should happen.'
You know that we had a major economic boom over this same period, which also accounts for the net interest as a % of GDP dropping? Also, you mention a grand bargain- I would LOVE a grand bargain, but saying we need one is akin to saying we need to do what Clinton did- address the problem by agreeing to cut some entitlements. Obama says he is willing to do this somewhat... but it is undeniably necessary.
Does the above graph not show our debt as a fraction of GDP approaching post WW2 levels? Seems like a good time to take evasive action to me...
I agree that there are probably 1000s of smarter ways to cut federal spending (more gradually, etc). But if this is the only way that the government can get it's act together enough to do it... well, it's a start.
Entitlements need to be brought under control, plain and simple. I'm willing to pay more taxes, too- but as of the start of this year, I'm Already paying more taxes (or rather, paying what I used to be paying) with regards to Social Security. That is not a tiny hit, and neither is sequestration, but both are necessary in some measure.
Bring on the grand bargain, and stop the squabbling already! But don't tell me we don't need to cut entitlements (not that you are, that's a general "you") or only raise taxes... like any business, the government needs to balance it's books. State and local governments have been doing so for the last few years, and it makes sense that the federal government needs to, too. It's just common sense.
But labelling this a "Republican" or a "Democratic" problem is just silly, imo. Democrats generally want more government programs, Republicans generally want more tax cuts, both of which can be good things in the right circumstances. Finding that balance is the key, and honestly is why I voted for Obama again, as I hope he will. But it's a balance, and some cuts to Federal spending is NOT the end of the world. Are they stupid cuts? Yes, certainly... but some cuts have to be made.
My company just laid off 7 people, out of a 35 person company. We're leaner and honestly better off for it. They were underperformers. It was painful, but we're getting past it. Without steps like that we'd go under (and honestly we still might, things are rough out there for getting funding). To think that the federal government can just continue to grow and not ever cut (not that you're saying this, this is again a general statement) is counter to everything any normal, healthy business does.
You cut back where necessary, invest where necessary, and bring in new sources of revenue when you can. Our government needs to do the same thing and hopefully this step will wake up the lawmakers one way or the other:
1) If no real effect, then they realize cutting isn't the end of the universe
2) If a strong negative effect, then they realize they need to get their act together and cut smarter, not harder
d-usa wrote: Politicians are always in campaign mode. If not for themselves then for their brand.
Well... sure, but a 2nd term Prez?
To be honest, I can only remember Clinton's / Bush's 2nd term and I think Obama campaigned more already in his 2nd term than both Clinton/Bush 2nd term total.
But... eh, his leadership style is different so... probably doesn't matter.
He's not campaigning for himself, but for the Democratic Party and his issues. He still has his community organizer background and knows that campaigning for issues is still an effective way to win the PR battle and to get people calling their reps and senators.
d-usa wrote: He's not campaigning for himself, but for the Democratic Party and his issues. He still has his community organizer background and knows that campaigning for issues is still an effective way to win the PR battle and to get people calling their reps and senators.
RiTides wrote: You know that we had a major economic boom over this same period, which also accounts for the net interest as a % of GDP dropping? Also, you mention a grand bargain- I would LOVE a grand bargain, but saying we need one is akin to saying we need to do what Clinton did- address the problem by agreeing to cut some entitlements.
I think you need to read my post again. I wasn't making any comment that rates have been lower. My point was that rates had been as high as the forecasts before, and the result wasn't catastrophe.
I mean, 'oh my God we must do something or payments will drift up to their 1990 rate and we all remember that was a blighted wasteland of suffering and sorrow' is stupid.
Obama says he is willing to do this somewhat... but it is undeniably necessary.
The cuts being proposed are actually quite undeniably completely unecessary. Hardship for no gain. In fact hardship that will only produce even more hardship. Read Bernanke's quote I already posted in this thread;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
Does the above graph not show our debt as a fraction of GDP approaching post WW2 levels? Seems like a good time to take evasive action to me...
The point of that graph was to show what drove each deficit spike, coming as it did after each round of Republican tax cuts. Did you read my answer to whembly, or just look at the graphs?
And the climb in future deficit is due entirely to rising healthcare costs. If you want to take any kind of action, then you have to reform the healthcare system (something the ACA actually did quite a lot of).
I agree that there are probably 1000s of smarter ways to cut federal spending (more gradually, etc). But if this is the only way that the government can get it's act together enough to do it... well, it's a start.
They're not getting their act together. They're replacing one set of stupid policies undertaken for entirely political reasons with a new set of entirely unecessary policies undertaken for political reasons.
I've used this analogy before, but I once saw a guy driving on the freeway, putting on clown make up as he went. It was one of the stupidest, most reckless things I've ever seen, but maybe at least that guy was trying to get to a party where he was going to make someone happy.
What the Republicans are doing doesn't even meet that minimum standard, because not are there actions here stupid and reckless, but they're not even trying to get any benefit out of this for anyone. They're just rejecting long term budget reform (reduced tax deductions and welfare reform) in favour of sequestration cuts that are on programs they actually like (including military cuts).
Not really. Not when much of the stupid is coming from the Washington establishment, who some time ago came to think of themselves as world weary battlers, who just knew the best way forward was a compromise position that reduced tax deductions and reformed welfare programs, and that both parties were equally at fault for failing to deliver it.
But the problem is that Obama has offered up exactly what they said is needed. And the Republicans have rejected it, because they've decided they're going to go back to being insane again this month.
The establishment folk, like Woodward, are caught in a weird bind, because the President is offering exactly what they said was exactly what's needed, but they can't say that, because then they'd be aligning with a Democrat and risk losing their 'pox on both your houses' bi-partisan cred. So instead they write incoherent stupidity about how it's Obama's fault because the other side won't agree to what everyone agrees is a good deal.
d-usa wrote: Politicians are always in campaign mode. If not for themselves then for their brand.
Well... sure, but a 2nd term Prez?
To be honest, I can only remember Clinton's / Bush's 2nd term and I think Obama campaigned more already in his 2nd term than both Clinton/Bush 2nd term total.
But... eh, his leadership style is different so... probably doesn't matter.
In his second term Reagan was busy battling old Ben Kenobi on the death star...
I was expecting a last minute deal, but since most of the "Sequester" cuts can be hidden for a few months, their is still a few more months to go, so no real sense of urgency.
Also, the Woodward thing was typical right wing hack journalism.
Here is the "threat"
I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really.
There's a scene from Bad Santa, that I can't link to because of forum rules, but search youtube for "bad santa half" and you'll see the sort of negotiation that Seb is describing. (in that scene, Bernie Mac is the republicans)
Generally speaking, neither party is more moral or righteous than the other. Most people that aren't pretty hardcore partisans acknowledge this.
However, that doesn't mean that gridlock is everybody's fault. There's a faction of the GOP, especially in the House, that sees compromise as poison.
The tragedy is that gridlock leads to the status quo, and when you're goal is to change the status quo, compromise is often a better long term solution. The Tea Party Strategy is the like a guy making $50k a year wanting to make $100k, and instead of accepting a raise every year, quits, and takes another $50k job. Sure, he's looking great on principle, but not getting what he wants.
whembly wrote: Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...
Why is the chart measured in trillions of dollars? Even adjusted for inflation, that doesn't address the difference in GDP. GDP adjusted dollars would be a much more appropriate axis, regardless of the conclusion you're drawing.
I was expecting a last minute deal, but since most of the "Sequester" cuts can be hidden for a few months, their is still a few more months to go, so no real sense of urgency.
Also, the Woodward thing was typical right wing hack journalism.
Here is the "threat"
I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really.
Don't even get me started on the "Friends of Hamas" bit either.
In a weird way... I'm sorta glad that the WH is pushing back on this. When's the last time an administration actively defended itself in this way? Clinton? Reagan?
whembly wrote: Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...
Why is the chart measured in trillions of dollars? Even adjusted for inflation, that doesn't address the difference in GDP. GDP adjusted dollars would be a much more appropriate axis, regardless of the conclusion you're drawing.
Why is that important? Why is it that government's need a percentage of the GDP?
Why is the chart measured in trillions of dollars? Even adjusted for inflation, that doesn't address the difference in GDP. GDP adjusted dollars would be a much more appropriate axis, regardless of the conclusion you're drawing.
Why is that important? Why is it that government's need a percentage of the GDP?
Because the US population tripled over the course of that chart and economic activity significantly more than tripled. The "size" of a government is only meaningful when compared to the size of the country. A tiny country has a tiny government. A huge country has a huge government. When you express government spending as a percentage of GDP, you get a much clearer picture of its growth over time.
Polonius wrote: Anybody bringing up total Federal spending when the discussion is about the budget is either overly uninformed or just preaching a philosophy.
The sequester doesn't cut fat. It just everything. Your household budget could get by with 5% less. Could your mortgage payment? Medical spending?
Frankly... do you know how big the Federal Budget is?
Why is it such a bad thing these days to question the size of the Budget?
86 Billion dollar cut is what... less than 2 % of the total Budget?
And maybe, just maybe this will force the Federal Government to actually REVIEW the spending expeditures for the future... instead of taking the easy why out to request more funding.
Why is the chart measured in trillions of dollars? Even adjusted for inflation, that doesn't address the difference in GDP. GDP adjusted dollars would be a much more appropriate axis, regardless of the conclusion you're drawing.
Why is that important? Why is it that government's need a percentage of the GDP?
Because the US population tripled over the course of that chart and economic activity significantly more than tripled. The "size" of a government is only meaningful when compared to the size of the country. A tiny country has a tiny government. A huge country has a huge government. When you express government spending as a percentage of GDP, you get a much clearer picture of its growth over time.
Because most spending isn't related to the budget, it's in the form of medicare and social security, which isn't part of the income tax/congressional budget/Agency spending path.
It's federal spending, but not the sort that gets argued about in budgets.
So, yes, if you're only concern is how much money the government spends, it's of note. But hardly anybody does as a practical manner.
Polonius wrote: Because most spending isn't related to the budget, it's in the form of medicare and social security, which isn't part of the income tax/congressional budget/Agency spending path.
It's federal spending, but not the sort that gets argued about in budgets.
So, yes, if you're only concern is how much money the government spends, it's of note. But hardly anybody does as a practical manner.
And to me...saying that the most of the spending is in medicare/social security is an easy scapgoat.
Even the GAO in 2011 had a report where cuts could be done!
This report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington:
44 overlapping job training programs,
18 for nutrition assistance,
82 (!) on teacher quality,
56 dealing with financial literacy,
more than 20 for homelessness, etc.
Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.
The problem here is that there's not enough political WILL to address this, as evident by the political class campaigning on these stuff, but complaining when the cuts occurs to their home state.
We're going down... a big FLAMING crash and burn is coming. Stock up on SPAM.
Wow its nearly lunch time and I haven't seen any planes falling from the sky, the mob come storming in to rob banks, Ecuador invade us, or 170 mm people become unemployed.
Because the US population tripled over the course of that chart and economic activity significantly more than tripled. The "size" of a government is only meaningful when compared to the size of the country. A tiny country has a tiny government. A huge country has a huge government. When you express government spending as a percentage of GDP, you get a much clearer picture of its growth over time.
I disagree with you on this premise.
How so? Do you disagree that the population tripled in that time? Because it did. I assure you.
Let me put it in better terms. If you went $20,000 further into debt right now, that would be a huge change in your life with IMMEDIATE effects. If donald trump went 20k into debt, he wouldn't even notice.
The size of the country determines how big of a deal a given number is. If you are throwing around RAW numbers without context, you are either trying to be disingenuous and scaremongering or you have bought-in hard on someone else's narrative.
Think about it, when you buy something don't you automatically think about it as a portion of your total income? "that's a whole month's rent" has gone through your head before, right? How can you POSSIBLY not think that context is important with debt sizes?
Frazzled wrote: Wow its nearly lunch time and I haven't seen any planes falling from the sky, The mob come storming in to rob banks, Eqcuador invade us, or 170 mm people become unemployed.
Because the US population tripled over the course of that chart and economic activity significantly more than tripled. The "size" of a government is only meaningful when compared to the size of the country. A tiny country has a tiny government. A huge country has a huge government. When you express government spending as a percentage of GDP, you get a much clearer picture of its growth over time.
I disagree with you on this premise.
How so? Do you disagree that the population tripled in that time? Because it did. I assure you.
Not disagreeing with you there...
Let me put it in better terms. If you went $20,000 further into debt right now, that would be a huge change in your life with IMMEDIATE effects. If donald trump went 20k into debt, he wouldn't even notice.
Sure.
The size of the country determines how big of a deal a given number is. If you are throwing around RAW numbers without context, you are either trying to be disingenuous and scaremongering or you have bought-in hard on someone else's narrative.
Sure in a general sense. I'm just arguing against the premise that "x" number of people DIRECTLY correlates to "Y" size of government.
Think about it, when you buy something don't you automatically think about it as a portion of your total income? "that's a whole month's rent" has gone through your head before, right? How can you POSSIBLY not think that context is important with debt sizes?
So...wait... we're supposed to look at goverment spending/budget like we do at the household now?
I thought we shouldn't do that. Since, you know, household can't print their own money and all.
So...wait... we're supposed to look at goverment spending/budget like we do at the household now?
I thought we shouldn't do that. Since, you know, household can't print their own money and all.
You're suggesting that we look at it as a big number devoid of context. I can do that too.
We have MILLIONS of police cars? HOW MANY IS TOO MANY. RAAAGE. That number is unacceptably big and that chart makes a line that goes up! I am scared even though I have no idea what any of that meaaaaans.
So...wait... we're supposed to look at goverment spending/budget like we do at the household now?
I thought we shouldn't do that. Since, you know, household can't print their own money and all.
You're suggesting that we look at it as a big number devoid of context. I can do that too.
We have MILLIONS of police cars? HOW MANY IS TOO MANY. RAAAGE. That number is unacceptably big and that chart makes a line that goes up! I am scared even though I have no idea what any of that meaaaaans.
No I'm not. Re-read what I posted.
If I'm "raging" at anything...it's that no one is willing to look at current expeditures with a critical eye.
So...wait... we're supposed to look at goverment spending/budget like we do at the household now?
I thought we shouldn't do that. Since, you know, household can't print their own money and all.
You're suggesting that we look at it as a big number devoid of context. I can do that too.
We have MILLIONS of police cars? HOW MANY IS TOO MANY. RAAAGE. That number is unacceptably big and that chart makes a line that goes up! I am scared even though I have no idea what any of that meaaaaans.
No I'm not. Re-read what I posted.
If I'm "raging" at anything...it's that no one is willing to look at current expeditures with a critical eye.
*shrugs*
Just let it ride...
Without a context, you're not looking at anything with a critical eye is the thing. If you look at raw numbers without something to compare them to, it's meaningless. It's just a big scary chart. This is econ 101.
"the goverment represented 20% of all spending last year and 10% the year before" is a more meaningful and informational statement than "the government spent X dollars last year" and "the government double'd spending last year"
So...wait... we're supposed to look at goverment spending/budget like we do at the household now?
I thought we shouldn't do that. Since, you know, household can't print their own money and all.
You're suggesting that we look at it as a big number devoid of context. I can do that too.
We have MILLIONS of police cars? HOW MANY IS TOO MANY. RAAAGE. That number is unacceptably big and that chart makes a line that goes up! I am scared even though I have no idea what any of that meaaaaans.
No I'm not. Re-read what I posted.
If I'm "raging" at anything...it's that no one is willing to look at current expeditures with a critical eye.
*shrugs*
Just let it ride...
Without a context, you're not looking at anything with a critical eye is the thing. If you look at raw numbers without something to compare them to, it's meaningless. It's just a big scary chart. This is econ 101.
"the goverment represented 20% of all spending last year and 10% the year before" is a more meaningful and informational statement than "the government spent X dollars last year" and "the government double'd spending last year"
We are missing each other here... I agree with you in this context.
I was merely disagreeing with your assertation that "x" number of people requires the government to be "y" size.
I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)
So...wait... we're supposed to look at goverment spending/budget like we do at the household now?
I thought we shouldn't do that. Since, you know, household can't print their own money and all.
You're suggesting that we look at it as a big number devoid of context. I can do that too.
We have MILLIONS of police cars? HOW MANY IS TOO MANY. RAAAGE. That number is unacceptably big and that chart makes a line that goes up! I am scared even though I have no idea what any of that meaaaaans.
No I'm not. Re-read what I posted.
If I'm "raging" at anything...it's that no one is willing to look at current expeditures with a critical eye.
*shrugs*
Just let it ride...
Without a context, you're not looking at anything with a critical eye is the thing. If you look at raw numbers without something to compare them to, it's meaningless. It's just a big scary chart. This is econ 101.
"the goverment represented 20% of all spending last year and 10% the year before" is a more meaningful and informational statement than "the government spent X dollars last year" and "the government double'd spending last year"
We are missing each other here... I agree with you in this context.
I was merely disagreeing with your assertation that "x" number of people requires the government to be "y" size.
I think it's completely safe to assert that if the population triples, the GDP is likely to have moved enough to matter.
I'm still waiting for the trillion dollar coin. What happened to that?
I'm with that conservative guy. If America is forced to deploy one less carrier than normal, then's it's vunerable to UN invasion. You have been warned!
I am shocked by that level of spending. Last year, I was reading a book about the US army in the early 1900s, and like I've said before, it was a struggle to get congress to fund an army of 10,000 men! Those were the days.
I'm with that conservative guy. If America is forced to deploy one less carrier than normal, then's it's vunerable to UN invasion. You have been warned!
I am shocked by that level of spending. Last year, I was reading a book about the US army in the early 1900s, and like I've said before, it was a struggle to get congress to fund an army of 10,000 men! Those were the days.
Platinum Coin idea died down when the Debt Ceiling was raised.
I don't think anyone involved wanted to go through the huge legal battle to defend the platinum coin anyway. Huge hassle and it would have looked way too questionable.
I think it's completely safe to assert that if the population triples, the GDP is likely to have moved enough to matter.
Well.. yeah, you'd hope. But the size of the government doesn't necessarily have to grow with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: I don't think anyone involved wanted to go through the huge legal battle to defend the platinum coin anyway. Huge hassle and it would have looked way too questionable.
On face-value, it's ridiculous... but, appears legal.
It's no more stupid than not raising the debt ceiling...really.
I think it's completely safe to assert that if the population triples, the GDP is likely to have moved enough to matter.
Well.. yeah, you'd hope. But the size of the government doesn't necessarily have to grow with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: I don't think anyone involved wanted to go through the huge legal battle to defend the platinum coin anyway. Huge hassle and it would have looked way too questionable.
On face-value, it's ridiculous... but, appears legal.
It's no more stupid than not raising the debt ceiling...really.
I can't see a modern government staying the same size during a population tripling and still being able to stay in power. The demand for expanded services would be too great. Even just things like roads and bridges for the increased population are going to drive up government costs.
As for the platinum coin, legal or not, people would have fought it and it would have been a nightmare. It's functionally identical to raising the debt ceiling, though.
I think it's completely safe to assert that if the population triples, the GDP is likely to have moved enough to matter.
Well.. yeah, you'd hope. But the size of the government doesn't necessarily have to grow with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: I don't think anyone involved wanted to go through the huge legal battle to defend the platinum coin anyway. Huge hassle and it would have looked way too questionable.
On face-value, it's ridiculous... but, appears legal.
It's no more stupid than not raising the debt ceiling...really.
I can't see a modern government staying the same size during a population tripling and still being able to stay in power. The demand for expanded services would be too great. Even just things like roads and bridges for the increased population are going to drive up government costs.
I wasn't advocating for the same size... just merely not take the default assumptions that this is what is needed.
This is also a conversation of "Wants" vs "Needs".
As for the platinum coin, legal or not, people would have fought it and it would have been a nightmare. It's functionally identical to raising the debt ceiling, though.
I don't necessarily think that if the population triples, government triples with it is true in this modern age. I think that the efficiency level of many services rendered by government agencies would have to triple, but not their size. If that makes any sense.
I recently read an article on Fox's website (i know i know), where they were talking about senators and congressmen no longer being allowed to use military aircraft for their travels... I actually think this should be reversed, but with this stipulation: If they fly on mlitary craft, it MUST be the same type of craft that the typical service member uses. So, a senator from Carolina needs a ride?? Well, he can hop on a C-130 for Pope AFB like many of us do
Needs will increase when population triples pretty much no matter what. Even if you don't expand ANY feel goody programs, schools, roads, bridges and firefighters are going to increase. Tripling population without growing those things would be pretty ruinous. We would have noticed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I don't necessarily think that if the population triples, government triples with it is true in this modern age. I think that the efficiency level of many services rendered by government agencies would have to triple, but not their size. If that makes any sense.
I recently read an article on Fox's website (i know i know), where they were talking about senators and congressmen no longer being allowed to use military aircraft for their travels... I actually think this should be reversed, but with this stipulation: If they fly on mlitary craft, it MUST be the same type of craft that the typical service member uses. So, a senator from Carolina needs a ride?? Well, he can hop on a C-130 for Pope AFB like many of us do
The problem was that they would go somewhere and do some lobbying or campaigning while there, which constituted the use of public funds for those activities.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I don't necessarily think that if the population triples, government triples with it is true in this modern age. I think that the efficiency level of many services rendered by government agencies would have to triple, but not their size. If that makes any sense.
Makes sense to me.
I recently read an article on Fox's website (i know i know), where they were talking about senators and congressmen no longer being allowed to use military aircraft for their travels... I actually think this should be reversed, but with this stipulation: If they fly on mlitary craft, it MUST be the same type of craft that the typical service member uses. So, a senator from Carolina needs a ride?? Well, he can hop on a C-130 for Pope AFB like many of us do
I'd be down with it...
it's the same idea of forcing the congress critters to use Medicare (if eligible) instead of their own awesome insurance plans. If there are issues with Medicare (or those C-130s), then the congress critters are more apt to fix it.
Polonius wrote: I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)
Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.
Polonius wrote: I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)
Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.
In either case, the raw numbers aren't appropriate to look at. Even if it is way too big, looking at the raw numbers out of context STILL gives the wrong idea.
Polonius wrote: I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)
Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.
In either case, the raw numbers aren't appropriate to look at. Even if it is way too big, looking at the raw numbers out of context STILL gives the wrong idea.
But that is the correct context.
Absolute numbers - way to big as evidenced by the fact our credit rating has fallen and is still falling.
Relative too population
Relative to GDP growth
I'm sorry what context again is the deficit not too large?
Polonius wrote: I think there's a pretty strong relationship between population and size of government. Even an ideally libertarian government would need enough police, courts, and prisons to handle the population. Admittedly, military spending relates more to strategic and other factors than size (compare Israel's spending to, say, India's)
Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.
In either case, the raw numbers aren't appropriate to look at. Even if it is way too big, looking at the raw numbers out of context STILL gives the wrong idea.
But that is the correct context.
Absolute numbers - way to big as evidenced by the fact our credit rating has fallen and is still falling.
Relative too population
Relative to GDP growth
I'm sorry what context again is the deficit not too large?
Raw numbers are meaningless. Countries of different sizes have different points where the government becomes "too big", I'm sure you would agree. The raw size of government where you get nervous is higher in the US than it is in the UK, since the UK has a smaller economy and less GDP.
Absolute numbers without relative positions of other numbers are not helpful at all. A 1 trillion dollar cut today means a lot less than 1 trillion dollar cut in 1950 and it means more than a 1 trillion dollar cut in 2060.
Meaning is derived from context. This is not a hard idea.
Frazzled wrote: On an absolute basis our credit rating was lowered and we are under the the threat of another downgrade.
On a relative basis we are the highest level of debt to GDP since WWII.
On a relative basis government is the largest its ever been.
On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.
On an absolute basis the "cut" is not a cut. Its just less GROWTH in the deficit. There is no cut.
Cut the govenrment to 2007 levels.
Ok?
Again, I'm not arguing about the conclusions. I'm arguing about the chart. making a chart with absolute values is pointless. Make the chart with relative values. You may still come to the same conclusions, but you got there with better data. We should agree that you want better data, right?
On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.
You really think there have been no sacrifices?
Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!
Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.
All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.
Polonius wrote: This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.
On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.
You really think there have been no sacrifices?
Everyone has made sacrifices...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?
On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.
You really think there have been no sacrifices?
Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!
Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.
I wanna see citations too... I think there's plus/minus for working for the govmint. Oh... and Polonius, that statement is quite the opposite in DC.
All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.
Polonius wrote: This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.
and vice versa.
To a lesser extent. For being a far left communist, Obama is talking, at most, of a marginal tax increase. On this particular issue, the Left is willing to talk difference of degree, while right is still arguing differences of kind.
Rented Tritium wrote: You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?
Not sure how's that is relevent.
Because private sector salaries have increased (though less than inflation). Government salaries have generally remained static, and explicitly so for the last two years. Most people would rather take a small drop in real income over a larger drop.
Polonius wrote: This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.
and vice versa.
To a lesser extent. For being a far left communist, Obama is talking, at most, of a marginal tax increase. On this particular issue, the Left is willing to talk difference of degree, while right is still arguing differences of kind.
Yeah... I'll buy that. I think any current party will do that. (see Bush's term w/ Democratic Congress).
Rented Tritium wrote: You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?
Not sure how's that is relevent.
Because private sector salaries have increased (though less than inflation). Government salaries have generally remained static, and explicitly so for the last two years. Most people would rather take a small drop in real income over a larger drop.
Um... citation please? If anything, its dropping. (workers in private industry that is)
Polonius wrote: This conversation is the microcosm of politics today. Apparently being right wing means you cant' agree with anything presented by the left.
On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.
You really think there have been no sacrifices?
Everyone has made sacrifices...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?
All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.
Yeup.
Really no different than the private sector.
Except not really. I know federally, or at least in my agency, we can't hire. At all. Not because we don't have money, or work, but because we are prohibited by law.
But, my point is that it's not like government employees have made out like bandits.
On a relative basis the economy has fallen. Incomes have fallen. Everyone but govenrment employees have had to make sacrifices.
You really think there have been no sacrifices?
Yeah, I'm going to need a citation for that!
Government employees were more likely to lose their jobs during the recession, and growth in government hiring is slower than in the private sector.
All Federal employees have had a two year pay freeze, the only hiring in two years has been at below replacement for attrition, and we are almost certain to face furoughs this year.
Please show me the mass layoffs the federal government workforce has endured since 2009.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote: You mean the government employees who get paid less than the private sector and haven't gotten raises in like 20 years? Those government employees?
Most studies are showing federal employees now get paid more. PLus they get full on benefits.
FIre half of them, give the rest a 20% raise and see if anyone would notice.
Because private sector salaries have increased (though less than inflation). Government salaries have generally remained static, and explicitly so for the last two years. Most people would rather take a small drop in real income over a larger drop.
Um... citation please? If anything, its dropping. (workers in private industry that is)
I can't find the exact article, but here's a chart showing real income:
Most studies are showing federal employees now get paid more. PLus they get full on benefits.
FIre half of them, give the rest a 20% raise and see if anyone would notice.
The single most frustrating element of working for the Federal Government is incompetent coworkers.
myself and a couple of supervisors think that our office would be more productive if we fired 10% of the staff, simply because they are a net drain to the workforce.
You would be surprised how little resistance the idea of merit based firings would have. Of course, the odds of them being actually being merit based are low, but whatever.
It's a sore spot. I'm a second generation civil servant (with three grandparents serving in WWII, natch), and so I'm keenly aware of the bloat in Federal Personnel. But I just hate getting caught with the same brush. My job was the first legal job I got out of law school, and I do a necessary job quickly and well. In any other field, I'd be able to negotiate my salary, move up, or somehow get recognition over my peers. As it stand, because I came in at the lowest grade, I'm the lowest paid person doing my job, and I've been unable to apply for multiple promotions because of time.
So I get home, and I find half the nation teeing off on lazy, overpaid government workers. To which I say, "I can show you where their desk is, bro."
But the taxpayer gets a lot of bang for his buck outta me.
You would be surprised how little resistance the idea of merit based firings would have. Of course, the odds of them being actually being merit based are low, but whatever.
It's a sore spot. I'm a second generation civil servant (with three grandparents serving in WWII, natch), and so I'm keenly aware of the bloat in Federal Personnel. But I just hate getting caught with the same brush. My job was the first legal job I got out of law school, and I do a necessary job quickly and well. In any other field, I'd be able to negotiate my salary, move up, or somehow get recognition over my peers. As it stand, because I came in at the lowest grade, I'm the lowest paid person doing my job, and I've been unable to apply for multiple promotions because of time.
So I get home, and I find half the nation teeing off on lazy, overpaid government workers. To which I say, "I can show you where their desk is, bro."
But the taxpayer gets a lot of bang for his buck outta me.
Let me first say that I appreciate what you do and if I gave any indication of using the big brush... I apologize.
I'm for alot of government services and even advocated expansion on some existing ones... like, the VA. In my mind, the VA should be given fundings/resources to make it THE.BEST healthcare organization on the planet. I believe we owe it to our Armed Services to do that. (and yeah, that'll be spendy).
I think people lose site of how ginormous the Federal Government is and that the 1% of overpaid/lazy Govmint folks are NOT indicative to everyone in Government.
The conversation we should be having is what services do we need and are we willing to pay for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.
Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.
Aren't they protected by the SIUE Union? Or, am I mixing things up here. ?
Let me first say that I appreciate what you do and if I gave any indication of using the big brush... I apologize.
I'm for alot of government services and even advocated expansion on some existing ones... like, the VA. In my mind, the VA should be given fundings/resources to make it THE.BEST healthcare organization on the planet. I believe we owe it to our Armed Services to do that. (and yeah, that'll be spendy).
I think people lose site of how ginormous the Federal Government is and that the 1% of overpaid/lazy Govmint folks are NOT indicative to everyone in Government.
The conversation we should be having is what services do we need and are we willing to pay for it.
Naw, it's nothing you said. It just sucks being the modern equivalent of a Kulak. And most people don't understand the huge differences between state and federal. I'm not saying I'd never work for the state, but I'd far rather work for the Feds. Now, State workers get lots of benefts (no SS tax, no health insurance premiums in Ohio) but also have to deal with politics at a much closer level. I've shocked people by explaining that I pay $120 a month in health insurance premiums for solo coverage. That's a great benefit, but not what people think I get.
And private or public, nobody trusts management to lay off the worst and keep the best.
d-usa wrote: I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.
Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.
Aren't they protected by the SIUE Union? Or, am I mixing things up here. ?
That doesn't make them not able to get fired. No union does that. It's just that management actually has to do a little bit of work to do it.
Here is what usually happens when people say that you cannot fire government/union employees:
Boss: We are firing you because you are a bad employee.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: What makes him a bad employee?
Boss: He doesn't do his job!
Union: Got any proof of that?
Boss: We say so.
Union: Sorry, no can do.
Employee: Hurray!
If management actually does their job the conversation becomes this:
Boss: We are firing you because:
1) On January 1st you didn't give the ordered antibiotics.
2) On January 2nd you didn't chart any patient teaching and didn't update the careplan.
3) On January 6th you didn't verify orders and missed a lab test that was ordered 6 hours ago.
........
25) On January 28th you didn't notify the doctor of a bad blood pressure.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: You are fethed...
d-usa wrote: I work with a few truly stupid people that I wish we could let go.
Part of the problem is also the lack of willingness by management and coworkers to maintain a proper paper trail for a firing.
Aren't they protected by the SIUE Union? Or, am I mixing things up here. ?
That doesn't make them not able to get fired. No union does that. It's just that management actually has to do a little bit of work to do it.
Here is what usually happens when people say that you cannot fire government/union employees:
Boss: We are firing you because you are a bad employee.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: What makes him a bad employee?
Boss: He doesn't do his job!
Union: Got any proof of that?
Boss: We say so.
Union: Sorry, no can do.
Employee: Hurray!
If management actually does their job the conversation becomes this:
Boss: We are firing you because:
1) On January 1st you didn't give the ordered antibiotics.
2) On January 2nd you didn't chart any patient teaching and didn't update the careplan.
3) On January 6th you didn't verify orders and missed a lab test that was ordered 6 hours ago.
........
25) On January 28th you didn't notify the doctor of a bad blood pressure.
Employee: Help me union!
Union: You are fethed...
Oh... yeah, I see your point.
Even the company I work for, management has to do that.
myself and a couple of supervisors think that our office would be more productive if we fired 10% of the staff, simply because they are a net drain to the workforce.
As a professional Desk Jockey, I have never found a place where this isn't the case. Of course, the key word in this sentence is "think".
I know our agency is terrible about supporting local management in any disciplinary action. Local management operates under the assumption that they can't fire people. Which is just terrible. Nobody want's to live in constant fear of termination, but IMO it's bad for morale to have no accountability.
Polonius wrote: I know our agency is terrible about supporting local management in any disciplinary action. Local management operates under the assumption that they can't fire people. Which is just terrible. Nobody want's to live in constant fear of termination, but IMO it's bad for morale to have no accountability.
Right there with you about the problems with firing people in the government. It is VERY hard to fire someone in my agency unless you've got a mountain of evidence on your side, and even then, the process can literally takes years. Our group supervisor was amazingly incompetent, to the point where he was an active obstruction to productivity, but due to his years in the the government (and military), he was nigh-untouchable. Thankfully, he managed to get a medical condition that allowed him to retire a few months ago with a good deal, so our collective stress levels have gone down (I actually no longer feel physically ill going to work every morning, it was that bad).
And the hiring freeze we've been under for the past couple years (our agency is capped at around 80% of its available positions depending on the department, so if you've got 80% of your positions filled, too bad, doesn't matter what you're hurting for, just share the workload, but amazingly enough, there's always management positions available) makes it so that you would almost rather keep an incompetent person, because you can't replace them with someone new. That's the problems with cutting government jobs from a budget: the ones that need to go, get to stay.
Anyway, some of the problems with the across-the-board cuts is that some agencies are hit harder by it than others. Those agencies already operating on a tiny budget (basically, the less popular agencies that aren't name-dropped in campaign speeches) will be hurt, while those with bigger budgets will just have to shuffle money around a bit (my own agency was able to massage the budget enough to only require furloughs, what I call "unpaid time off awards" for no more than one day a paycheck for up to 14 pay periods).
Of course if that were true ouur government would be what, 2.5x larger than WWII max? I'd going with cutting back the size of the government to the same level as 1952 in relation to population.
Prior to TARP, and the associated state actions, that's pretty much what it was.
What is wrong with having a powerful economy with a low to non-existant national debt?
I would be all for everyone paying the same high 35 + % percentage of taxes, after deductions and then slashing government spending down to Military, Law Enforcement and core infrastructure maintenance until we pay the debt down to 25% of the GNP.
Yes, this would hurt the economy, but if it was made clear that these were temoprary austerity measures with a set time limit at the end of which they end(Read can not be extended) I think that the world and the economy would still be there when the country re-emerged from this fasting period.
Really, I just keep thinking that 3-5 years of hardship would be worth the interest payment savings and long term security, I'd much rather that we spend what we currently use on interest to help fund R&D for new technologies and to for training programs to help the disadvantaged become upwardly mobile.
Tannhauser42 wrote: just share the workload, but amazingly enough, there's always management positions available
I've noticed this too. Recently someone covering for one of our managers who was on maternity leave had a management position invented for them when this other manager came back, while whenever someone who actually does the work retires, leaves, etc, everyone else just has to pick up the work.
It was the same during the last round of "management for change" - all the managers took on loads of extra work and responsibilities from everyone else so they kept their pay banding, then as soon as they were safe started delegating it all back out again.
You also get a lot of horizontal movement of useless people, rather than actually getting rid of them. Hell, you see some people promoted just so departments can get rid of them.
It's a sore spot. I'm a second generation civil servant (with three grandparents serving in WWII, natch), and so I'm keenly aware of the bloat in Federal Personnel. But I just hate getting caught with the same brush. My job was the first legal job I got out of law school, and I do a necessary job quickly and well. In any other field, I'd be able to negotiate my salary, move up, or somehow get recognition over my peers. As it stand, because I came in at the lowest grade, I'm the lowest paid person doing my job, and I've been unable to apply for multiple promotions because of time.
So I get home, and I find half the nation teeing off on lazy, overpaid government workers. To which I say, "I can show you where their desk is, bro."
But the taxpayer gets a lot of bang for his buck outta me.
Polonius, I have to tell you that if you want to make money as a Lawyer why are you working a Govt. Job?
Also, it doesn't always work out the way you described in industry. As an engineer, I can say that the best way to get a raise is to move to another job. I know people that move to another job every few years. They trade immediate benefits over a pension, if you are blessed to find a company that still offers a pension(which I am) you might be willing to take a little less for the security.
Polonius, I have to tell you that if you want to make money as a Lawyer why are you working a Govt. Job?
It was literally the only job I could find. I graduated in May 2009, was sworn in November 2009, and didn't work a legal job until I started here in October 2010. Oh, I did unload trucks at Target, but was laid off...
It was actually the greatest thing that could have happened to me. I would not have enjoyed litigation, and my salary is still competitive, especially when factoring the benefits and schedule. Few full time lawyers get true 40 weeks, or paid vacation they can actually take, or pension plans. I'd rather have my current job than make six figure at a "eat what you kill" firm.
Also, it doesn't always work out the way you described in industry. As an engineer, I can say that the best way to get a raise is to move to another job. I know people that move to another job every few years. They trade immediate benefits over a pension, if you are blessed to find a company that still offers a pension(which I am) you might be willing to take a little less for the security.
GG
Oh, I totally get that. I've had my fair share of non-straters in compensation negotiations. It's tough to do in the private sector, its impossible in government employment.
My beef isn't that I'm underpaid, it's that so many of my coworkers are paid more than me! The writer that's widely acknowledged to be the worst in the office is making 35% more than me, and that's after my ladder increase. When I started, she was bringing twice what I made.
The good thing is that I'm actually well suited for government work. I have a high BS tolerance, I understand that some sensible rules can be broken while stupid rules can't, and I know that more than anywhere else, patience and a willingness to move will get you ahead. Bureaucracy is made for Type B personalities.
Same for me, although I am probably more type A. I have worked at enough hospitals to know that all have their own politics and that government work is just a different kind of internal politics than other places. Once you figure out the system it's really not hard to work under. Let the BS you can do nothing about roll of your back, and change the things you can. Realize that as a government job you can't just go "hey, this will be easier and have better outcomes!" and think it will happen. You gotta come armed with some research, published studies, and lots of patience.
I got lots of coworkers that always say "nothing will ever change" and who do nothing to change things. They are also the same people who will complain about the useless coworkers, but refuse to write them up and help create a paper trail. So nothing gets done because they don't want to do the work to get anything done.
In the meantime I have written 3 center memorandums, did the research to write and cite them, show up at the board and committee meetings to get them passed and implemented. It's a 4-6 month process for each of them sometimes, but it can be done.
Government work is a different animal, but I do enjoy it.
I find that the key to government work is to quickly find out what the Hard Rules are. Things like time and attendance, and filling out leave slips. things that nobody in local managment can get you out of. Then, follow those to the letter, and cheerfully correct any mistakes you make. Do that, and I've found that managment will be a lot more pleasant when it comes to matters of discretion.
I mean, it's little more than the common sense policy of making it easier for people to help you, but in government more than anywhere else, the people above you have suprisingly litlte authority.
Tannhauser42 wrote: just share the workload, but amazingly enough, there's always management positions available
I've noticed this too. Recently someone covering for one of our managers who was on maternity leave had a management position invented for them when this other manager came back, while whenever someone who actually does the work retires, leaves, etc, everyone else just has to pick up the work.
It was the same during the last round of "management for change" - all the managers took on loads of extra work and responsibilities from everyone else so they kept their pay banding, then as soon as they were safe started delegating it all back out again.
You also get a lot of horizontal movement of useless people, rather than actually getting rid of them. Hell, you see some people promoted just so departments can get rid of them.
This is also true everywhere I have worked. if you want to be "safe" you need to be management. The higher the level of management, the safer you are.
whembly wrote: Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...
That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.
The issue is not the idea of cuts - Obama's own proposal includes cuts, and cuts to the things Republicans love to talk about cutting - entitlement programs.
The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling. Let me repeat, yet again, Ben Bernanke's testimony to congress;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
So you have cuts that cause immediate economic harm, while doing nothing to slow the rise of future deficits. Obama offers up an alternative plan built around cuts that will make a long term difference to budget deficits, on things the Republicans say they want (cuts to entitlement spending & reduced tax deductions), but they've backed themselves into a corner where politically they can't accept them.
You don't get to do that. Government as a % of GDP is the only way in which government can be sensibly measured. Rejecting that simply makes you irrelevant to economic discussion.
whembly wrote: And to me...saying that the most of the spending is in medicare/social security is an easy scapgoat.
Even the GAO in 2011 had a report where cuts could be done!
First up, what in the hell do you mean by 'even the GAO'. It's part of their job, specifically mandated by congress, to identify opportunities for efficiency cuts.
Second up, if you actually read the report you'll find those are system efficiencies. That means spending money now in order to put in place a more efficient system for later on. So in the DoD you put in place a contracting agency with whole of department authority, and over time you replace existing contracts with ones that represent better value for money for the department (and country) as a whole.
That's the kind of thing that sane government can do. Steady, incremental reform over time.
Instead you've the sequester, which can't do any of the above. It just cuts. It means you don't get leaner, cheaper DoD contracts. You just get cancellations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I don't necessarily think that if the population triples, government triples with it is true in this modern age. I think that the efficiency level of many services rendered by government agencies would have to triple, but not their size. If that makes any sense.
It makes sense, but the other issue is that as the economy grows, the nature of how government and the economy interact changes as well.
Think about it like this, centuries ago the government of the day needed to provide roads for trade goods (of which there weren't that many) and defence. That was it.
Move forward to today, and the government plays an integral part in the modern economy. The modern economy is dependant on having a highly educated workforce, and that means massive government involvement in primary, secondary and tertiary education. And even further government involvement in R&D to expand and develop industry. It also needs trade that can shift goods across country and across the world at very low cost, and that means quality roads and ports.
People love to see government as a hindrance on business. But ultimately that's just complete bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I'm sorry what context again is the deficit not too large?
According to the expert opinion given through testimony to congress... that I've posted several times in this thread, and that I think it would benefit you to finally fething read and fething learn something.
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: On an absolute basis our credit rating was lowered and we are under the the threat of another downgrade.
As I explained to you before, that rating cut is entirely for political reasons, and beyond irrelevant to the debt market (after the last ratings cut the US govt's cost of borrowing decreased).
I've already explained that to you before. Only for you to decline to respond, and then just repeat the same nonsense later on.
fething debate whack-a-mole. You post standard GOP talking point. I explain it's wrong. You scurry off. You repeat it again. I explain it's wrong. On and on we go.
Sooner or later I'll get my tokens and claim a big furry bear or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Avatar wrote: What is wrong with having a powerful economy with a low to non-existant national debt?
I would be all for everyone paying the same high 35 + % percentage of taxes, after deductions and then slashing government spending down to Military, Law Enforcement and core infrastructure maintenance until we pay the debt down to 25% of the GNP.
Yes, this would hurt the economy, but if it was made clear that these were temoprary austerity measures with a set time limit at the end of which they end(Read can not be extended) I think that the world and the economy would still be there when the country re-emerged from this fasting period.
Really, I just keep thinking that 3-5 years of hardship would be worth the interest payment savings and long term security, I'd much rather that we spend what we currently use on interest to help fund R&D for new technologies and to for training programs to help the disadvantaged become upwardly mobile.
It isn't a terrible idea, but once you account for the nature of the economy as an inter-dependant entity (my spending is your income, your spending is my income) then you realise that the austerity you're talking about needs to be done over a generation, and done with sensible consideration for the economic activity at any given time.
That is to say, right now where economic activity is well below potential, it's a terrible idea. With interest at the zero lower bound and unemployment several points above its natural rate, all you'll get from drawing all that money out of the economy is more unemployment and less production. But as the economy recovers then it becomes, over 20 or 30 years, a really solid solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Bernanke is a tool. The GAO just a couple of weeks ago had this to say about how things are. "The Federal Budget remains on a unsustainable path."
Read better. Read more carefully, read with an intent to understand what is actually being said. Learn to read with an understanding to the greater context. Note what isn't said as much as what is, and think about all that before lurching off on some nonsense conclusion.
Bernanke is talking about the immediate cuts. He makes no comment there about long term cuts, because he is only being asked about the need for more cuts right now, and his answer there is perfectly considered, and just plain fething right - the short term budget is under control.
The long term budget issue is driven entirely by unsustainable health care increases. Which as the GAO report you linked to but probably didn't read says, controlling that depends on whether the cost control measures of the ACA are continued (and probably need to be expanded upon).
Sequester is just stupid, stupid political theatre. And you're believing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here's Alan Binder laying out in plain english exactly what the nature of the deficit problem is;
PROBLEM 1: In the very short run, meaning right now, we probably have too much deficit reduction. The U.S. economy could actually use some fiscal stimulus (to wit, larger deficits) today, rather than more fiscal contraction, because unemployment is still so high. Doesn’t that sound like Krugman?
PROBLEM 2: Over the coming decade, however — which is the focus of Simpson-Bowles, the so-called grand bargain, and most other plans — we do need to bring the deficit down, I argued. And, indeed, Problems 1 and 2 should be linked: by joining together some modest stimulus now with perhaps ten times as much deficit reduction over the ten-year budget window. In Washington-speak, we would thus “pay for” the stimulus ten times over. Furthermore, I argued, we could accomplish that without undue pain and suffering.
PROBLEM 3: The real budget crunch comes well down the line — a decade or two or three from now. The problem is simple to diagnose — healthcare costs are projected to soar — and it looks massive. By the way, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start addressing the healthcare cost problem now.
That's the real, actual problem. The current solution - fix it right now, now now now now! is beyond stupid.
While talking about 'budget cuts', we are paying congress and the president a grand total of $76,962,600
$174,000 for most senators, representatives, and resident commissioner from Puerto Rico.
$193,400 for the majority/minority leader in both the house and senate.
$223,500 for the president pro tempore and house speaker
$400,000 for the president
This is the amount we pay to congress every year.
Considering most of the house or senate have failed to live up to requirements and pass a budget, I feel like a pay cut's in order. No matter how badly it would reduce Nancy Pelosi's "dignity". I bet we could cut that by at least half.
Bernanke is talking about the immediate cuts. He makes no comment there about long term cuts, because he is only being asked about the need for more cuts right now, and his answer there is perfectly considered, and just plain fething right - the short term budget is under control.
This right here just shows how out of touch you are with the whole issue. The budget is under control?
What budget? There hasn't been a budget in 4 years. If there was a budget, none of this situation ever would have happened. We wouldn't be running trillion dollar deficits for the last 4 years. We wouldn't have just had 20% of the DoD budget hacked off in the last year. But hey... budget deficits are supposed to shrink from 1 trillion a year to just 600 billion a year over the next few years. Yeah, only spending 600 billion a year that we don't have is certainly under control.
As I said, Bernanke is a tool, and people who buy this crap are as well.
Sequester is just stupid, stupid political theatre. And you're believing it.
I'm not buying into a damn thing. I welcome massive cuts. I just wish that they would have actually SHRUNK the government, instead of restricting some of the "growth". The only thing I would have changed about this event was where the cuts had come from. Actually attacking real wasteful spending, instead of making the vast majority of the hacking into our defense. An entire Carrier out of comission for who knows how long. As much as a 1/5th of reduction in our force manpower. Civilians work furloughed with the potential of seeing 800,000 people unemployed come September.
I'm sick and tired of the most productive part of the US Government constantly being the first one looked at when the Republicans finally twist the Dem's arms enough to get them to stop spending as much money.
djones520 wrote: This right here just shows how out of touch you are with the whole issue. The budget is under control?
What budget? There hasn't been a budget in 4 years. If there was a budget, none of this situation ever would have happened. We wouldn't be running trillion dollar deficits for the last 4 years.
You don't need to formally pass a budget in order for there to still be budgets. I mean, what you're saying would mean that government employees would see there was no budget passed, and immediately start flying about the country on cocaine and hooker filled orgies because hey, no budget.
So please, don't go trying to play all expert on me here. You're going to embarass yourself.
And if you'd read just one of the many things I've posted in this thread, it maybe, just maybe would have entered your head that the trillion dollar deficits you're seeing right now are due to the recession. You maybe, just fething maybe would have learned that in recession tax revenue drops while spending increases. And you'd have learned that the people who do this for a living, as opposed to the people on the internet who see the words 'trillion dollar deficit' and think 'ooh that's a big number', understand that the economic recovery will see the short term deficit problem move back to sustainable levels. So much so that for the next decade you'll see debt as a % of GDP remain static at about 75%.
And then, if you'd been staggeringly attentive in your reading by the standards of the internet, you might have even read that the actual, real, long term threat to budget sustainability is through rising healthcare costs. And then, maybe just maybe, you'd have looked and seen that the sequestration cuts are all short term things that don't address that issue at all.
But you did none of that. So here I am explaining all over again. Because maybe this time you'll read it.
We wouldn't have just had 20% of the DoD budget hacked off in the last year.
Have you actually read what the sequester requires, and what Obama offered?
I'm sick and tired of the most productive part of the US Government constantly being the first one looked at when the Republicans finally twist the Dem's arms enough to get them to stop spending as much money.
If you're concerned about cuts to the DoD then you should be contacting every Republican member of congress and telling them to take Obama's deal, because the sequester cuts DoD budgets massively, but Obama's deal doesn't.
While talking about 'budget cuts', we are paying congress and the president a grand total of $76,962,600
$174,000 for most senators, representatives, and resident commissioner from Puerto Rico. $193,400 for the majority/minority leader in both the house and senate. $223,500 for the president pro tempore and house speaker $400,000 for the president
This is the amount we pay to congress every year.
Considering most of the house or senate have failed to live up to requirements and pass a budget, I feel like a pay cut's in order. No matter how badly it would reduce Nancy Pelosi's "dignity". I bet we could cut that by at least half.
And here is the GOP talking point #32, when trying to justify their refusal of a deal that most people want, just blame everyone equally.
You don't need to formally pass a budget in order for there to still be budgets. I mean, what you're saying would mean that government employees would see there was no budget passed, and immediately start flying about the country on cocaine and hooker filled orgies because hey, no budget.
Oh, I thought you might link to the Secret Service actually using hookers. As far as pointless little asides that completely miss the point being made, that would have been way better.
Oh, I thought you might link to the Secret Service actually using hookers. As far as pointless little asides that completely miss the point being made, that would have been way better.
Anytime you can slip in a slick Willie joke you should totally go for it.
I swear you can almost hear a laugh track on that photo.
I don't see the issue with Colombian prostitutes myself, have you seen the women that come out of South American in general? (image spoilered to save your souls from the sight of a gorgeous woman, from Colombia, in a tasteful bikini.)
Spoiler:
As I understand it the Clinton Whitehouse had them on tap.
Oh, I thought you might link to the Secret Service actually using hookers. As far as pointless little asides that completely miss the point being made, that would have been way better.
Anytime you can slip in a slick Willie joke you should totally go for it.
I miss President Clinton so much now. You never kinow what you have until you lose it.
whembly wrote: And to me...saying that the most of the spending is in medicare/social security is an easy scapgoat.
Even the GAO in 2011 had a report where cuts could be done!
First up, what in the hell do you mean by 'even the GAO'. It's part of their job, specifically mandated by congress, to identify opportunities for efficiency cuts.
They're a reporting agency Seb... that have NO power to do anything.
Second up, if you actually read the report you'll find those are system efficiencies. That means spending money now in order to put in place a more efficient system for later on. So in the DoD you put in place a contracting agency with whole of department authority, and over time you replace existing contracts with ones that represent better value for money for the department (and country) as a whole.
can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O
That's the kind of thing that sane government can do. Steady, incremental reform over time.
are they sane now? NOW?
Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".
Instead you've the sequester, which can't do any of the above. It just cuts. It means you don't get leaner, cheaper DoD contracts. You just get cancellations.
Not cuts... a reduction of growth. Get it straight.
Sequestration was the Obama's administration's idea. It was an attempt to insert a perbervial POISON PILL to force actions on both side of the aisle. In this case, both parties couldn't agree on anything. Which really makes you think that the proposals to avoid it were much worse.
whembly wrote: Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...
-snip-
That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.
Um... okay, if you feel that way.
The issue is not the idea of cuts - Obama's own proposal includes cuts, and cuts to the things Republicans love to talk about cutting - entitlement programs.
Wait... where?
The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling.
Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...
Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.
Let me repeat, yet again, Ben Bernanke's testimony to congress;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
Um... wut? How will he know this happens? I seemed to remember like two years ago (maybe during the stimulus programs?) he said that we'd be roaring back by this time.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.
So you have cuts that cause immediate economic harm, while doing nothing to slow the rise of future deficits. Obama offers up an alternative plan built around cuts that will make a long term difference to budget deficits, on things the Republicans say they want (cuts to entitlement spending & reduced tax deductions), but they've backed themselves into a corner where politically they can't accept them.
There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.
You don't get to do that. Government as a % of GDP is the only way in which government can be sensibly measured. Rejecting that simply makes you irrelevant to economic discussion.
whembly wrote: They're a reporting agency Seb... that have NO power to do anything.
Well, yeah.
You said (paraphrasing) 'now even the GAO is releasing a report on potential government savings
can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O
There's lot of possible solutions, lots of debate to be had about the best way forward. Unfortunately there's also a lot of crazy noise and nonsense that people with absolutely no understanding of the basic numbers of the economy keep shouting.
As an anecdote, assume we're all a bit drunk, and are walking home from the bar and have gotten a bit lost. I'm saying we've gone the wrong way, but that turn we made back there looks to have put us on the right path and if we keep going this way we should be alright. Other voices are saying yes we've done a lot of the work, but we should move a block to the left or right before heading on.
The Republicans are saying we're absolutely lost, we'll never get home, and there's nothing else for it but to draw straws on who we start eating first.
are they sane now? NOW?
They can be. When people stop electing crazies, and stop following crazy ideologies government is just as sane as any other organisation.
Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".
You know the point of those stories is that they're myths, or wildly misleading at best. The bullets thing was the number of rounds contracted to be purchased over many years. The MRAP thing, near as I can tell, is just total made up bs.
Sequestration was the Obama's administration's idea. It was an attempt to insert a perbervial POISON PILL to force actions on both side of the aisle. In this case, both parties couldn't agree on anything. Which really makes you think that the proposals to avoid it were much worse.
All of which works as an argument, as long as we pay no attention to the proposals put forward to make sequestration unecessary. Obama put up exactly what the Republicans said they wanted, and they rejected it out of hand, because since the deficit deal they've reverted back to the position of absolutely refusing any kind of revenue growth. And then they played this little game where they pretended all sides were to blame... because the alternative was to actually have to defend their policy of continuing tax deductions that are unpopular, even with a majority of their own party's voters. And they're even willing to sacrifice entitlement reform (something that's wildly popular with Republican voters) to get that.
How would you be when you explain something in common sense language, time and again, only for other posters to simply ignore that and continue repeating nonsense.
Wait... where?
You seriously don't know the contents of Obama's proposal?
"Mr. Obama has continued to call for a broader $1.5 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package that would be roughly split between new tax revenues from the wealthy and corporations and reduced spending for the fast-growing entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/28/us/politics/proposals-to-avoid-sequestration.html?_r=0
Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...
Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.
No, it isn't about government being the only one able to get you out. You're getting out, slowly but steadily right now, as the private sector recovers.
But the point is that private sector recovery depends on overall aggregate demand (the total of all goods bought in the economy in a given year). Drop any part of that demand suddenly and it reverberates through the economy, causing decline elsewhere and threatening that recovering private sector investment.
Now, there are times when such cuts don't matter much (when the economy is at or near full capacity). But this is not one of those times, right now you are well below full capacity.
Um... wut? How will he know this happens? I seemed to remember like two years ago (maybe during the stimulus programs?) he said that we'd be roaring back by this time.
Yes, the expectations of the recovery were overstated in several places. This is due in part to people not yet having a full understanding of the scope of the crash (I think most people today still don't understand the severity of the crisis) and expectations that the recovery package would do more - they believed the package that would be delivered was going to be bigger, and focused on more useful forms of stimulus than the politically compromised final package we saw.
But, if you want to question the value of good old Keynesian stimulus, let's look at Europe, led by Germany's call for austerity.
See how unemployment is just getting worse, even now? That's because austerity in the midst of recession is fething stupid.
Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.
That's not me, that's Bernanke. And that's basic economics. If you want to encourage private sector investment to move back to somewhere near full economic capacity, don't make sudden cuts that drop aggregate demand.
There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.
I am by no means an Obama fanboi. It's just that compared to the behaviour of the other side, he ends up looking pretty good.
And why would his own party vote on a bill designed to be acceptable to the Republicans? The point is that, assuming the Republicans are trying to be adults for a brief moment, they see that Obama is offering up the things they've said they really want - removal of deductions (rather than a raise in the tax rate) and entitlement reform. But the Republicans are playing stupid games again, because they seem to actively refuse the idea of governance.
Wanna bet...
oh... I just did.
And doing so makes you irrelevant to economic discussion. It's like wanting to talk about Warhammer, but refusing to accept the existance of dice. It's such a marked difference from the basic reality of the situation that it means you have absolutely nothing to offer.
whembly wrote: They're a reporting agency Seb... that have NO power to do anything.
Well, yeah.
You said (paraphrasing) 'now even the GAO is releasing a report on potential government savings
Right...so, we're both throwing the GAO's report around. Just so that you understand, they're a reporting agency.
can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O
There's lot of possible solutions, lots of debate to be had about the best way forward. Unfortunately there's also a lot of crazy noise and nonsense that people with absolutely no understanding of the basic numbers of the economy keep shouting.
As an anecdote, assume we're all a bit drunk, and are walking home from the bar and have gotten a bit lost. I'm saying we've gone the wrong way, but that turn we made back there looks to have put us on the right path and if we keep going this way we should be alright. Other voices are saying yes we've done a lot of the work, but we should move a block to the left or right before heading on.
The Republicans are saying we're absolutely lost, we'll never get home, and there's nothing else for it but to draw straws on who we start eating first.
And Democrats... both party is at fault. It's the nature of the political environment now...
are they sane now? NOW?
They can be. When people stop electing crazies, and stop following crazy ideologies government is just as sane as any other organisation.
Both parties man... throw Mr. I won't floor a budget bill Reid into that mix... would ya!
Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".
You know the point of those stories is that they're myths, or wildly misleading at best. The bullets thing was the number of rounds contracted to be purchased over many years. The MRAP thing, near as I can tell, is just total made up bs.
No... I get that. What I'm asking is why spend ALL that money right now? Again... priorities.
Sequestration was the Obama's administration's idea. It was an attempt to insert a perbervial POISON PILL to force actions on both side of the aisle. In this case, both parties couldn't agree on anything. Which really makes you think that the proposals to avoid it were much worse.
All of which works as an argument, as long as we pay no attention to the proposals put forward to make sequestration unecessary. Obama put up exactly what the Republicans said they wanted, and they rejected it out of hand, because since the deficit deal they've reverted back to the position of absolutely refusing any kind of revenue growth. And then they played this little game where they pretended all sides were to blame... because the alternative was to actually have to defend their policy of continuing tax deductions that are unpopular, even with a majority of their own party's voters. And they're even willing to sacrifice entitlement reform (something that's wildly popular with Republican voters) to get that.
First of all... "Erza Klein"... REALLY? Look him up some more would ya.
Again... Paul Ryan was brave enough (took some hits politically) to table is budget plans... heck even the Simpson-Bowles proposal that Obama fething commissioned was NOT even considered by Obama nor Reid.
But, no... just keep on blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans... go ahead.
You're awfully touchy today... o.O
How would you be when you explain something in common sense language, time and again, only for other posters to simply ignore that and continue repeating nonsense.
Well... to be honest... we all do that.
Wait... where?
You seriously don't know the contents of Obama's proposal?
"Mr. Obama has continued to call for a broader $1.5 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package that would be roughly split between new tax revenues from the wealthy and corporations and reduced spending for the fast-growing entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/28/us/politics/proposals-to-avoid-sequestration.html?_r=0
Yeah.. I've seen it. It's full of gak.
Let me repeat it for you again. EVEN is own PARTY won't vote for it. So what does that tell ya?
Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...
Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.
No, it isn't about government being the only one able to get you out. You're getting out, slowly but steadily right now, as the private sector recovers.
But the point is that private sector recovery depends on overall aggregate demand (the total of all goods bought in the economy in a given year). Drop any part of that demand suddenly and it reverberates through the economy, causing decline elsewhere and threatening that recovering private sector investment.
Now, there are times when such cuts don't matter much (when the economy is at or near full capacity). But this is not one of those times, right now you are well below full capacity.
I actually agree with... up to a point.
Where's the incentive for private businesses to expand/grow? I can't always be strictly from government growth... in addition, some tweaks need to be done to encourage more investments from the private sector.
Um... wut? How will he know this happens? I seemed to remember like two years ago (maybe during the stimulus programs?) he said that we'd be roaring back by this time.
Yes, the expectations of the recovery were overstated in several places. This is due in part to people not yet having a full understanding of the scope of the crash (I think most people today still don't understand the severity of the crisis) and expectations that the recovery package would do more - they believed the package that would be delivered was going to be bigger, and focused on more useful forms of stimulus than the politically compromised final package we saw.
True dat... it was the classic case of "their heart was in the right place"... but, in practice, it was a boondogle.
But, if you want to question the value of good old Keynesian stimulus, let's look at Europe, led by Germany's call for austerity.
See how unemployment is just getting worse, even now? That's because austerity in the midst of recession is fething stupid.
Sure... so what?
Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.
That's not me, that's Bernanke. And that's basic economics. If you want to encourage private sector investment to move back to somewhere near full economic capacity, don't make sudden cuts that drop aggregate demand.
You... of all people should understand that it isn't that simple... because it CAN'T last.
There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.
I am by no means an Obama fanboi. It's just that compared to the behaviour of the other side, he ends up looking pretty good.
You sure look like it... that's okay.
Obama is starting to get ding'ed here.
And why would his own party vote on a bill designed to be acceptable to the Republicans? The point is that, assuming the Republicans are trying to be adults for a brief moment, they see that Obama is offering up the things they've said they really want - removal of deductions (rather than a raise in the tax rate) and entitlement reform. But the Republicans are playing stupid games again, because they seem to actively refuse the idea of governance.
You're missing the point... the House Republicans can pass the fething BEST budget bill concieved, but Reid (and Senate Democrat) won't have anything to do with it... cause, ya know... Republicans.
It's the nature of politics these days.
Wanna bet...
oh... I just did.
And doing so makes you irrelevant to economic discussion. It's like wanting to talk about Warhammer, but refusing to accept the existance of dice. It's such a marked difference from the basic reality of the situation that it means you have absolutely nothing to offer.
Fine... let's talk Warhammer... what army do you play?
sebster wrote: Right...so, we're both throwing the GAO's report around. Just so that you understand, they're a reporting agency.
Yeah, I know what they are. I've worked in a state level equivalent here (sort of, long story).
Point being, you were saying that even they were pointing out ways for government to save money. I commented that was funny, because finding ways for government to make money is a stated role of the organisation.
"Now even the EPA is trying to put environmental controls in place" "Now even Games Workshop is trying to increase profits"
No... I get that. What I'm asking is why spend ALL that money right now? Again... priorities.
They're not spending any more money. The bullet contract is an on-going, regular course of business thing. And the acquisition of MRAPs is a thing that isn't actually happening.
First of all... "Erza Klein"... REALLY? Look him up some more would ya.
I read him regularly. Enough that I even know how to spell his name
And I'm sure you've got him pegged as a leftie and you used that to excuse you from reading the link, but you really should. It's just twitter feeds from Republicans showing that they simply will accept accept no compromise from Obama, and if Obama offers them exactly what they want they'll pretend he didn't offer it.
Again... Paul Ryan was brave enough (took some hits politically) to table is budget plans... heck even the Simpson-Bowles proposal that Obama fething commissioned was NOT even considered by Obama nor Reid.
Simpson Bowles is a fething shambles. It pays absolutely no attention to the actual numbers in place defining the issue. Their claims on projected SS numbers would make a grad student blush.
At this point I suspect the only reason they have any legitimacy is because a lot of Washington worships at the altar of bi-partisanship, and Simpson plays the role of a grumpy old man with a nice turn of phrase (as long as you don't look at the substance of his actual claims).
But, no... just keep on blaming EVERYTHING on Republicans... go ahead.
Not everything. But this is definitely all their fault. The deal is there, it's what they said they wanted. They didn't take it, and there's only two possible reasons why.
1) What they said they wanted was lies. They said 'oh no, we don't need to raise tax rates on the wealthy, we just need to get rid of those deductions and loopholes'... but when that's actually offered up they reject it. Because that line was grade a bs, just a means to sidestep rejecting a tax increases on the rich. Now they're being called on it. 2) They backed themselves in to a corner where a deal, and deal at all, with Democrats will cost them with the true believers in their party. They fear the hard liners will throw them out in the primary if they're seen doing a deal, even a deal that gives them what they want, with the Democrats.
Pick one.
Well... to be honest... we all do that.
Yeah.. I've seen it. It's full of gak.
Let me repeat it for you again. EVEN is own PARTY won't vote for it. So what does that tell ya?
Oh, so state what you want in a deal. Get offered it. Reject it because 'its full of gak'. What the hell, man? With that kind of bargaining strategy, fething what could Obama do to actually get a deal?
I actually agree with... up to a point.
Where's the incentive for private businesses to expand/grow? I can't always be strictly from government growth... in addition, some tweaks need to be done to encourage more investments from the private sector.
Of course it isn't purely from government. In time, as the recovery continues, the economy gets close to full capacity then you roll back government. That's the point to stimulus - it's a short term measure, for when the economy is in recession, and dropping interest rates isn't enough by itself (because they've reached the zero lower bound, ie you can't have interest rates below zero).
True dat... it was the classic case of "their heart was in the right place"... but, in practice, it was a boondogle.
Oh don't get me wrong, the stimulus did a lot of good. It didn't do as much as was advertised, and should have been probably twice as big to properly offset the GFC.
Sure... so what?
Look at Europe's climbing unemployment. Note that austerity doesn't in fact spark an economy back to life through the magic of 'confidence'.
Then consider how much attack there is on the US government's deficits. Realise those attacks are stupid, and pay no attention to the realities of macroeconomics.
You... of all people should understand that it isn't that simple... because it CAN'T last.
It can last until recovery is achieved.
You're missing the point... the House Republicans can pass the fething BEST budget bill concieved, but Reid (and Senate Democrat) won't have anything to do with it... cause, ya know... Republicans.
It's the nature of politics these days.
No, seriously, don't just talk in vague generalisations. That's just running away from the specifics of this issue. And with this issue we see Republicans doing everything they can to avoid a deal that's offering them what they were apparently asking for.
And seriously, I thought you liked removing deductions? And aren't you in favour of steadily reducing the size of the welfare spend?
Fine... let's talk Warhammer... what army do you play?
Empire. And if recent games are any guide, I play Empire badly
whembly wrote:
Second up, if you actually read the report you'll find those are system efficiencies. That means spending money now in order to put in place a more efficient system for later on. So in the DoD you put in place a contracting agency with whole of department authority, and over time you replace existing contracts with ones that represent better value for money for the department (and country) as a whole.
can I just interject here with an honest to god question? Why are you thinking in absolutes here? You're on a soapbox rant basically claiming your way is the only way. Just saying... o.O
sebster tends to do this. Its almost like socialism is his church and liberlism is his god. To him any that contadict the teachings of the liberal apostles is heresy.
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:That's the kind of thing that sane government can do. Steady, incremental reform over time.
are they sane now? NOW?
Just look at the numerous examples of the inefficiencies we've been seeing... look at the other posts. Do we really need to purchase a billion $$ worth of bullets? Does the DHS really need those MRAPs? It's not really a question of "do we have the money" but more "do we really NEED to purchase these things".
You missed the strawman whembly. Governments can and have moved swiftly to enact rapid far reaching reform. When such reforms are something sebster supports then they can not happen fast enough for him. A case of a government quickly enacting a major cange quickly would be germanies ecological laws adopted in 1984-85. Quite sweeping and implemented quickly.
You did make a good point about waste. When you get to digging and start to see the sheer number of agencies that do basically the same jobs, one can see where meaningful cuts could be made through consolidation of various agencies.
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.
Um... okay, if you feel that way.
sebster, your response here is a derisive dismissal without a logical argument. It comes across as an almost fanatical refusal to consider the differing point of view.
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling.
Sure agree with you there... but there's a VERY important concept that's missing here...
Where's the government actions to help facilitate a better economic conditions for businesses? It's almost as if you believe government is the only one that can get us out the rut now.
I think that is exactly what sebster believes. After lurking and reading here for years, I've noted that there seems to be a very strong state controlled(socialist?) ideology to his arguments. Which is fine for him or any that feel/believe that way. It is his derisive refusal to consider that others opposing views are just as valid that prevent honest cmmunication.
I would hazard that it is a similar attitude that has killed any cooperative spirit inside the beltway.
sebster wrote:
Whembly wrote:
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions."
Again... methinks you're putting waaaay too much weight on government's role here in the USofA.
sebsters not putting too much weight when you consider that he seems to be arguing from the perspective that the US should have a state run economy as opposed to a free market. Don't agree with his viewpoint, but understand that he has a differing one that is just as valid to him as mine is to me.
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
So you have cuts that cause immediate economic harm, while doing nothing to slow the rise of future deficits. Obama offers up an alternative plan built around cuts that will make a long term difference to budget deficits, on things the Republicans say they want (cuts to entitlement spending & reduced tax deductions), but they've backed themselves into a corner where politically they can't accept them.
There you go again.. you're sounding like an Obama-fanboi here... Obama's alternative plan was gakky... even his own party members wouldn't vote on it.
I think that the problem here is that Obama didn't present anything. Now he did attempt to "dictate" a course of action that immediately silenced all communication between the parties with the overpowering rhetoric.
Truth is neither side was willing to make a serious proposal that consisted of a fair compromise..
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
You don't get to do that. Government as a % of GDP is the only way in which government can be sensibly measured. Rejecting that simply makes you irrelevant to economic discussion.
Wanna bet...
oh... I just did.
Again with the his way is the only way to look at it stance. On top of this, it seems that sebsters stance is that the debt has to be x percentage of the GDP.
There is nothing wrong with a lower percentage of debt or even lowering it through balancing the books. If a nations economy won't work with a balanced budget then there are issues that need to be immediately addressed
Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.
He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.
So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.
That's the cliff notes of what happened.
Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.
According to a foxnews.com article I read earlier, there is a newly leaked email that suggests that the Obama administration has been "hinting and telling" other Federal agencies to make the sequestration as painful as possible.
I know that it's fox news and all, but this is actually not the first place that I have heard this bit.
I know that basically anyone and everyone who was elected into their position in Washington shares major blame for what is going on, it would appear on some level that certain people are making things more difficult than they really need to be, and purely for political reasons.
That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.
Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.
whembly wrote: Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.
He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.
So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.
That's the cliff notes of what happened.
Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.
Yeah, the thing to remember is that at each of the steps above, the republicans were doing the exact opposite thing. They've both been making long term plays with this trying not to be the one with the hot potato.
Easy E wrote: That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.
Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.
Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...
A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.
Easy E wrote: That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.
Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.
Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...
A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.
It's weird how you're jaded and naive at the same time. We have had literally zero presidents that wouldn't play politics with this. You don't get that much power by letting political opportunity slide. If you're in that office at all, you're a seasoned pro and even your "not playing politics" is a type of playing politics.
Easy E wrote: That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.
Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.
Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...
A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.
Eh... to be fair Frazz... Obama's job is to enforce the law...
Sequestration is the law.
I was just pointing out that Everyone is culpable in DC, not just the (R)s.
Is there a reset button somewhere? We need some new folks in DC.
Easy E wrote: That's politics 101. Make your opponent's backers feel the pain and not your supporters.
Why do you think those Republican Governors and Mayors suddenly got mad at their party about Sequestration. They realized it would hit them pretty hard.
Mmm... yep I'm sure we'll feel it, any day now...
A real President would be looking to reduce the impact. Even a mediocre one who was interested in DOING HIS JOB.
It's weird how you're jaded and naive at the same time. We have had literally zero presidents that wouldn't play politics with this. You don't get that much power by letting political opportunity slide. If you're in that office at all, you're a seasoned pro and even your "not playing politics" is a type of playing politics.
Is there a reset button somewhere? We need some new folks in DC.
Would not help. These issues are systemic results of natural game theory and will arise with anyone in those jobs. Think Lord of the Flies.
I was being cheaky...
But, I don't think we have too many "career politicians"... but, then again... who'd run?
That's why lord of the flies is the right comparison here. Even the friendliest and most cooperative group of people, given a few years in washington with each other, will kill piggy and ruin everything.
E: It's not all doom and gloom, though. Personally I think that instant-runoff voting would help immensely.
the thing about trying to reduce the impact of the sequestration cuts is that most agencies are very limited as to where they can make those cuts. You can't cut money you've already committed (contracts), so after you scrounge for the loose change in the various accounts, you're mostly left with the Personnel and Expenses accounts. And, at least in my agency, the Expenses account has already been cut close to the bone for several years now, so that means the Personnel account takes a hit, and so now we'll get furloughed.
I'm on the mailing list for Sen. Cornyn (sent him a form email awhile back requesting one of the space shuttles be located at, you know, NASA in Houston). His email basically blamed the Democrats, and tried to put the perspective that the cuts are like having to eat $5 less food in your monthly $250 grocery budget and minimal things like that. To that I want to ask: if I'm being required to potentially give up to 7% of my pay this year, what are you giving up Mr. Senator? I'm going to be getting unpaid days off, only to come back in the next day to work my ass off twice as hard to do two days' of work in one day.
I swear, it was true when George Carlin said it years ago and it's still true today:
Captain Avatar wrote: sebster tends to do this. Its almost like socialism is his church and liberlism is his god. To him any that contadict the teachings of the liberal apostles is heresy.
Don't confuse how I talk to you with how I talk to people who know what they're talking about.
sebster, your response here is a derisive dismissal without a logical argument. It comes across as an almost fanatical refusal to consider the differing point of view.
After the quoted bit I went on to explain to whembly why it was nonsense (nature of flat top level cuts and timing of those cuts). In his next quoted section whembly even agreed with me on why the graph was bad, though he argued with the general idea of stimulus.
In future, please don't drop in half way through a conversation, start grinding through quote blocks without any understanding of the greater conversation and try to score political points. It will make you look foolish, and waste my time having to explain the actual conversation to you.
I think that is exactly what sebster believes. After lurking and reading here for years, I've noted that there seems to be a very strong state controlled(socialist?) ideology to his arguments. Which is fine for him or any that feel/believe that way. It is his derisive refusal to consider that others opposing views are just as valid that prevent honest cmmunication.
I would hazard that it is a similar attitude that has killed any cooperative spirit inside the beltway.
That's not even remotely close to my political and economic views. And I'd say your half-assed effort at labeling me (complete with disingenuous 'that's fine, though, really, but it makes you politically irrelevant bs) is one of the many kinds of cheap politics that has crippled co-operation in Washington.
Just in case you actually care, and actually bother to read what I actually write, I am first and foremost a free marketeer. I look at the modern world built on the back of capitalism and think 'this might not be perfect, but holy gak this is the most amazing society humanity has ever achieved'. But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why.
One of the failings of a capitalist economy is when the interest rates hit the zero lower bound (interest rates are at zero, and can't drop anymore in response to excessive savings and inadequate investment). In this situation the only way to avoid a currency crisis is to stimulate aggregate demand with government spending.
Go away and read Keyne's General Theory. Unlike what nonsense you've likely been told, like me Keynes was a strong believer in markets and capitalist economics. He just knew the situations in which they stopped working.
sebsters not putting too much weight when you consider that he seems to be arguing from the perspective that the US should have a state run economy as opposed to a free market. Don't agree with his viewpoint, but understand that he has a differing one that is just as valid to him as mine is to me.
I don't believe in state planning. That's just nonsense.
There is such a massive difference between state involvement in a capitalist economy (which you already have, for feth's sake).
I think that the problem here is that Obama didn't present anything. Now he did attempt to "dictate" a course of action that immediately silenced all communication between the parties with the overpowering rhetoric.
Truth is neither side was willing to make a serious proposal that consisted of a fair compromise..
So it's clear you haven't even followed the debate. I've linked to Obama's proposal already. Please read. Learn. Know things. Stop basing opinions on things you'd like to be true.
Again with the his way is the only way to look at it stance. On top of this, it seems that sebsters stance is that the debt has to be x percentage of the GDP.
No, seriously. Some things are just true. Cars go faster than walking speed.
This debate concept in which anything that someone chooses to dispute must be treated as an equal opinion with all else is just not true. You want to talk about why beltway political debates breakdown to nothing? Well one of the reasons is that no-one is held to account by reality anymore. The Austrian school claimed the Fed's quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation, and they were completely and utterly wrong, nothing of the sort happened at all. But despite being completely wrong, they've still got a seat at the table.
It's like the idea of looking and seeing if what someone is saying is actually true doesn't even exist anymore.
There is nothing wrong with a lower percentage of debt or even lowering it through balancing the books. If a nations economy won't work with a balanced budget then there are issues that need to be immediately addressed
Of course lower debt is better. That's about as contraversial as saying higher GDP is better. But it wasn't what was being debated.
whembly was trying to argue that looking just at government spending in isolation, without any reference to GDP was a meaningful analysis. It isn't.
whembly was trying to argue that looking just at government spending in isolation, without any reference to GDP was a meaningful analysis. It isn't.
Well... why not? I know it really should have the adjusted GDP dollars... but just look at the right side from year 2009 to 2013. What it's doing is emphasizing the craziness of claiming "catastrophy" that the administration was expousing.
Now, what you're arguing is that it's the wrong time to do this... sure I can agree with that. But, is it truly catastrophic?
whembly wrote: Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.
He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.
So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.
You're missing what sequestration actually is. It was a deal that said 'we commit to all these cuts, unless we can come to another deal on how to make savings before that time'. The point being both parties would form deals, negotiate and look to get some kind of deal together that's smarter and better than the sequestration cuts.
The problem being that everyone came up with deals, and in the case of Obama came up with a deal that was exactly what Republicans said they wanted. And it was a deal that made good economic sense, putting in place reforms that would deliver meaningful long term savings, instead of just a small but actue cut to immediate spending.
But the Republicans don't even want to accept the deal that's got everything they said they wanted. Which brings us back to asking why?
1) What they said they wanted was lies. They said 'oh no, we don't need to raise tax rates on the wealthy, we just need to get rid of those deductions and loopholes'... but when that's actually offered up they reject it. Because that line was grade a bs, just a means to sidestep rejecting a tax increases on the rich. Now they're being called on it.
2) They backed themselves in to a corner where a deal, and deal at all, with Democrats will cost them with the true believers in their party. They fear the hard liners will throw them out in the primary if they're seen doing a deal, even a deal that gives them what they want, with the Democrats.
Pick one.
Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.
For having a sequestration looming, both parties are responsible. For failing to make a deal that's better for all than the sequestration cuts? That's all GOP.
I'm a 40k brat... playing Orks and Dark Eldar. I don't my win/loss record nor do I really care. I'm there to have fun.
Yeah, me too, no idea what my win/loss record is. I'm there to have fun as well, and don't pick all powerful armies or anything (though as with everything there's a lot of subjectivity for where 'cheese' begins). But I still like to play a smart game, and a few of my last couple of games have most certainly not been that (screwing up the magic phase has kind of become my 'thing')
I used to play Orks in 40K, and loved it back when the good days of 4th, before Space Wolves started the crazy power levels back up again.
whembly wrote: Seb... let's back up a bit... this thread is about Sequestration.
He never officially proposed a budget recently... the one he did, his own party wouldn't vote on it.
So... to get the deal back in the day:
-First Obama proposed the sequester.
-Then he promised to veto any attempt to stop it.
-Then he pretended he never said that, and blamed Republicans for not stopping it.
-Then he predicted Sequestergeddon.
-And now, his administration is trying to ensure that his scare tactics don’t backfire on him.
You're missing what sequestration actually is. It was a deal that said 'we commit to all these cuts, unless we can come to another deal on how to make savings before that time'. The point being both parties would form deals, negotiate and look to get some kind of deal together that's smarter and better than the sequestration cuts.
No... I get it... hence why I called it a "Poison Pill" sort of strategy. To me, it's no different than kicking the can down the road. Nothing new really other than this had a bite to it.
The problem being that everyone came up with deals, and in the case of Obama came up with a deal that was exactly what Republicans said they wanted.
Not exactly... he wanted to raise taxes (which honestly didn't bother me since it was closing loopholes and stuff like that).
And it was a deal that made good economic sense, putting in place reforms that would deliver meaningful long term savings, instead of just a small but actue cut to immediate spending.
Honestly, that's debateable... remember, the Bush's tax cuts expired for the wealthy (and businesses). So, he wanted to raise taxes even more.
But the Republicans don't even want to accept the deal that's got everything they said they wanted. Which brings us back to asking why?
Why do you keep saying that? Honest question here... unless I'm missing something. I did read the plans on both sides and they're different. Am I looking in the wrong year/plan? O.o
1) What they said they wanted was lies. They said 'oh no, we don't need to raise tax rates on the wealthy, we just need to get rid of those deductions and loopholes'... but when that's actually offered up they reject it. Because that line was grade a bs, just a means to sidestep rejecting a tax increases on the rich. Now they're being called on it.
2) They backed themselves in to a corner where a deal, and deal at all, with Democrats will cost them with the true believers in their party. They fear the hard liners will throw them out in the primary if they're seen doing a deal, even a deal that gives them what they want, with the Democrats.
Pick one.
Well yea... that's the nature of politics now... both parties do that. You do know that it appears that you're advocating that Obama/Dems are the Saints here and the Republicans are idjits.
Republicans do share the blame of the snafu that's occuring now... but, don't place it squarely on their lap. Obama & the Dems are just as culpable.
For having a sequestration looming, both parties are responsible. For failing to make a deal that's better for all than the sequestration cuts? That's all GOP.V\
Disagree with you here buddy. Cool?
I'm a 40k brat... playing Orks and Dark Eldar. I don't my win/loss record nor do I really care. I'm there to have fun.
Yeah, me too, no idea what my win/loss record is. I'm there to have fun as well, and don't pick all powerful armies or anything (though as with everything there's a lot of subjectivity for where 'cheese' begins). But I still like to play a smart game, and a few of my last couple of games have most certainly not been that (screwing up the magic phase has kind of become my 'thing')
I used to play Orks in 40K, and loved it back when the good days of 4th, before Space Wolves started the crazy power levels back up again.
I started when Orks were "waning" in the power list... 'cuz, I had this irrational mentality to try to prove folks wrong. But then again... I'm there to have fun.
I think that's why I score so high on gameplay 'cuz I really don't do any rules arguing... if you play it differently... *shrugs* I'll adapt and overcome.
whembly wrote: Well... why not? I know it really should have the adjusted GDP dollars... but just look at the right side from year 2009 to 2013. What it's doing is emphasizing the craziness of claiming "catastrophy" that the administration was expousing.
Now, what you're arguing is that it's the wrong time to do this... sure I can agree with that. But, is it truly catastrophic?
Yeah, see, I agree that catastrophe is overstating it. I mean.. okay here's the deal. Right now part of my job is finding cuts. Every year, matter of course we get a thing called an efficiency dividend, and it ranges in how much. Last year was 3%, this year is 2.5%, next year is speculated to be 1.5% (though with the election next week and all kinds of major works proposals from both sides speculation is all over the shop). This means I troll through cost centre after cost centre, line item after line item picking up waste money. Figuring out if a travel budget for our professional development program needs to be as high as it does, given the travel budgets of other similar organisations. Figuring out if the loss we make on the sub program is worth the international recognition we get for it (it doesn't, no fething way it does, but convincing executive of that is a whole other matter).
I don't have a problem with making cuts like this as a regular matter of course. That earlier GAO report, that's kind of what part of my job is (that said they do it on a whole of government level, so in a lot of ways its also very different).
But that kind of ongoing process is very different in nature to the cuts in the sequester. Because our process in part is about freeing up money to do more elsewhere. While our base operating is cut by 3%, those savings (and savings elsewhere in government) are being used to open a new campus down south. Whereas with the sequester it really is a case of 'stop what you're doing'.
And I'm not just arguing the timing is wrong, and that it's poorly implemented. I'm also saying it's political theatre about solving something that simply isn't a priority problem. The immediate deficit isn't what anyone wants, but compared to the waste inherent in the unemployment rate (imagine how much better everyone is if instead of collecting an unemployment check those people were working and contributing) and the long term rise in the deficit through health care, it's just not an issue.
Anyone who values good governance in the slightest and who understands the current political situation simply has to demand the GOP stop playing games, and go to the negotiating table to hammer out a deal that protects long term deficit growth, and avoids the sequester that threatens the still fragile economic recovery.
Yeah, see, I agree that catastrophe is overstating it. I mean.. okay here's the deal. Right now part of my job is finding cuts. Every year, matter of course we get a thing called an efficiency dividend, and it ranges in how much. Last year was 3%, this year is 2.5%, next year is speculated to be 1.5% (though with the election next week and all kinds of major works proposals from both sides speculation is all over the shop). This means I troll through cost centre after cost centre, line item after line item picking up waste money. Figuring out if a travel budget for our professional development program needs to be as high as it does, given the travel budgets of other similar organisations. Figuring out if the loss we make on the sub program is worth the international recognition we get for it (it doesn't, no fething way it does, but convincing executive of that is a whole other matter).
I don't have a problem with making cuts like this as a regular matter of course. That earlier GAO report, that's kind of what part of my job is (that said they do it on a whole of government level, so in a lot of ways its also very different).
But that kind of ongoing process is very different in nature to the cuts in the sequester. Because our process in part is about freeing up money to do more elsewhere. While our base operating is cut by 3%, those savings (and savings elsewhere in government) are being used to open a new campus down south. Whereas with the sequester it really is a case of 'stop what you're doing'.
And I'm not just arguing the timing is wrong, and that it's poorly implemented. I'm also saying it's political theatre about solving something that simply isn't a priority problem. The immediate deficit isn't what anyone wants, but compared to the waste inherent in the unemployment rate (imagine how much better everyone is if instead of collecting an unemployment check those people were working and contributing) and the long term rise in the deficit through health care, it's just not an issue.
Anyone who values good governance in the slightest and who understands the current political situation simply has to demand the GOP stop playing games, and go to the negotiating table to hammer out a deal that protects long term deficit growth, and avoids the sequester that threatens the still fragile economic recovery.
Great response mate... I find myself nodding along here... I just think that if the electorate really believe that the GOP is "play games" with this, they'd be out of power.
It's not that simple.
If you want to find fault...it's that BOTH parties are culpable AND we don't have a strong leader right now (ie, Clinton, Reagon, Kennedy...).
I really don't know how to fix this. What we're seeing is what we're going to get... unless a true catastrophy occurs.
A shame really.
It's like this ongoing filibuster of the head of CIA position... it political theater right now and to me, it's a waste of energy.
whembly wrote: No... I get it... hence why I called it a "Poison Pill" sort of strategy. To me, it's no different than kicking the can down the road. Nothing new really other than this had a bite to it.
Except the reforms mentioned had real legislative impact. Chained CPI increases to entitlements just isn't kicking the can down the road. It's a real thing with real economic impact down the line.
Not exactly... he wanted to raise taxes (which honestly didn't bother me since it was closing loopholes and stuff like that).
Exactly, it's what Republicans said they wanted. Now that it's offered, it's kind of clear they just said they wanted it,
Honestly, that's debateable... remember, the Bush's tax cuts expired for the wealthy (and businesses). So, he wanted to raise taxes even more.
But overall still nowhere near the level they were before the Bush tax cut. And that in turn was much lower than rates before the Reagan cuts.
I've explained before how what we've seen over three decades now is two sets of cuts to income tax rates. Under the first cut the deficit blew out, and was only finally brought back to sustainability with the compromise during Clinton's administration.
Then Bush put in the second cut, and sustainability is now being battled over, with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.
Why do you keep saying that? Honest question here... unless I'm missing something. I did read the plans on both sides and they're different. Am I looking in the wrong year/plan? O.o
When someone says the revenue reform they want is to close loopholes, and then other side offers them that and they run away, it's a good question to ask why.
Well yea... that's the nature of politics now... both parties do that. You do know that it appears that you're advocating that Obama/Dems are the Saints here and the Republicans are idjits.
The Republicans aren't idiots here. They're avoiding a deal where each part has majority support, even majority support among Republican voters, and have managed to split the political impact evenly with the other side.
That's far from being idiots. In fact that's called winning.
The point is that if people stop arguing about the horse race and which side is good and bad, and start looking at what policy proposals are actually best for the country, then it becomes clear that the best way forward is for people to start hounding the Republicans until they return to the table, and help deliver the Obama proposal. Seriously, it's a good deal, way better than sequestration.
I started when Orks were "waning" in the power list... 'cuz, I had this irrational mentality to try to prove folks wrong. But then again... I'm there to have fun.
I think that's why I score so high on gameplay 'cuz I really don't do any rules arguing... if you play it differently... *shrugs* I'll adapt and overcome.
Yeah, I don't argue rules. I mean, I like to look things up, because the rules are written really quite poorly, and it can be easy to miss a little thing that makes a situation make more sense than it should. I actually think the reputation for silliness in GW rules is actually unfair, there's frequently a sentence somewhere in there that will make a rule make sense, it's just that the rules are such a mess most players, even hardcore tournament players can go years playing a rule incorrectly.
Problem is, I'm not like I was when I was a teenager. Used to be I could look something up, learn how it was supposed to play, and remember it for next time. Maybe even remember the page number, or phrasing of the rule. These days I find myself looking up the same rules game after game. Something about having a job, a wife and a life makes stuff like miniature game rules much harder to fit in my head
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Great response mate... I find myself nodding along here... I just think that if the electorate really believe that the GOP is "play games" with this, they'd be out of power.
It's not that simple.
If you want to find fault...it's that BOTH parties are culpable AND we don't have a strong leader right now (ie, Clinton, Reagon, Kennedy...).
I really don't know how to fix this. What we're seeing is what we're going to get... unless a true catastrophy occurs.
A shame really.
It's like this ongoing filibuster of the head of CIA position... it political theater right now and to me, it's a waste of energy.
*shrugs* I'm growing more cynical here...
Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy were all attacked in there time, and all had plenty of failed policy efforts. I mean hey, Clinton failed to get a healthcare bill that his own party would even bring to the floor, Obama actually got one passed. Kennedy I would say was actually a failed presidency in a lot of ways (it took Johnson to actually deliver what Kennedy promised). And I'm almost certain you'll disagree, but I'd say the political mess in the US today, both politically and economically, is almost entirely the legacy of Reagan's transformation of the Republican party (I've actually got a fair bit of time for the pre-Reagan Republican party, absent their attacks on the New Deal).
Nor do I think people react against politicians playing games. Really that depends on how well the game is played. The Republicans played it poorly in the last round of debt ceiling increase, and had to basically give up and let the ceiling increase while gaining nothing for their own side. This time around they're playing it well, managing to walk away from a deal with strong popular support, while splitting the blame evenly.
The filibuster of nominations is... well, kind of complicated. Because there's a time and place to dispute an appointment. It goes back to Robert Bork's nomination, and well, the Dems were right in opposing his nomination (his behaviour in the Nixon administration showed a basic lack of respect for the law, so putting him on the Supreme Court is just a nightmate). But the Dems were very wrong to make their rejection such a political drama, because it opened the door to all the politically motivated opposition to appointments that has followed.
sebster wrote:
Don't confuse how I talk to you with how I talk to people who know what they're talking about.
How wonderfully arrogant and patronizing.
Really, You know not who I am yet, you make the assumption that you are superior. Hubris much?
By your previous statements in this and in many other threads, you seem to be, at best, an acedemic theorist who has never spent any time in the competitive business world. Your "the conservatives are always uneducated and wrong" but "I'm a liberal who has some college so I must know more attitude" does nothing to help foster honest communication.
The only time I ever run into this kind of blind conciet is when talking with my old class mates who couldn't hack it in the business world and became teachers/professors. You know the old saying, "Those that can,... do. Those that can't.... teach."
Captain Avatar wrote:
sebster wrote:sebster, your response here is a derisive dismissal without a logical argument. It comes across as an almost fanatical refusal to consider the differing point of view.
After the quoted bit I went on to explain to whembly why it was nonsense (nature of flat top level cuts and timing of those cuts). In his next quoted section whembly even agreed with me on why the graph was bad, though he argued with the general idea of stimulus.
In future, please don't drop in half way through a conversation, start grinding through quote blocks without any understanding of the greater conversation and try to score political points. It will make you look foolish, and waste my time having to explain the actual conversation to you.
A) Actually, you did no such thing within that post. Even if you have gone back and editted in a proper response it does not change the impact of such a statement at the time it was written. My point stands that your tone and words were derisive and detrimental to communicating openly and honestly. Maybe if you reigned in your ego, you might understand how automatically assuming that you are superior is an error.
B) As long as I am not in violation of Dakkas terms of use, I will drop in at anytime and post my perspective as I please thank you. Also want to point out that you are operating under some delusion that as to my ability to comprehend. I understand the whole of what you guys are discussing, seriously, back in my prep school days I would have been able to easily follow this discussion.
C) I'm looking follish? Looks around, then in mirror. Sees old man wearing rainbow wig and a monocle. Nope, nothing follish here, silly yes, foolish no.
Now if my comments bother you to the point that you seem compelled to "waste your time" and respond to them, I invite you to use the little ignore button in the corner of your screen. By doing such you can then ignore my statements, that seem to strike a sensitive nerve, like you do with opposing points of view.
sebster wrote:
Just in case you actually care, and actually bother to read what I actually write, I am first and foremost a free marketeer. I look at the modern world built on the back of capitalism and think 'this might not be perfect, but holy gak this is the most amazing society humanity has ever achieved'. But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why.
A) Claiming to be a free marketeer does not make you one. Though, with how the definition is being muddled by collectivist philosophy/socialist ideology this could degenerate into.whole seperate topic.
Lets just say from a purist classical definition, I feel that your past comments make your claim here seem debatable depensing upon individual perspective..
and
B) Wow, I mean just wow. Your last sentence just illustrated my earlier point of hubris. Here, let me copy pasta it here so that the full meaning of your words doesn't get lost in the clutter:
Quote sebster "But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why."
By your words here. You are making the claim to have a better understanding of capitalism than every right wing person(taken to be read as republican) in existence. That group includes a large number of the best and brightest businessmen in the world, sure you wanna make that claim.
Honestly, you're prejudice and derision toward conservatives is only serving to reinforce the conservative stereo-type of liberals being unreasonable and incapable of compromise.
sebster wrote:One of the failings of a capitalist economy is when the interest rates hit the zero lower bound (interest rates are at zero, and can't drop anymore in response to excessive savings and inadequate investment). In this situation the only way to avoid a currency crisis is to stimulate aggregate demand with government spending.
Go away and read Keyne's General Theory. Unlike what nonsense you've likely been told, like me Keynes was a strong believer in markets and capitalist economics. He just knew the situations in which they stopped working.
A) I disagree, even if we were taking about a purely capitalist economy. Thing is, the US economy is a hybrid economy. The sheer number of government regulations and socialist programs proves this.
In a hybrid economy, when the intrest rates hit zero, there are many other things that can be done aside from increased government spending..
1)The Government can ease both trade and manufacturing stifilng regualtions,
2)Clamp down on the large scale corruption that is syphoning off much needed capital
3)Cutting government spending to first balance the budget but with the goal of reducing the tax burden on the economy. This leaves more working capital for the middle class and the private sector.
4)The government can re-negotiate trade agreements with the aim to increase trade
5)Renegotiate pork lined government contracts for savings and to help employ a greater number of workers
just to name a few
Could also just sit back, do nothing and allow the economy to correct itself, you know, the way that free markets are supposed to. But thats just crazy talk, sort of like expecting our government to balance its books.
B) Funny you mention Keyes. He viewed government spending as a last resort, after lowering taxes.
Also, his theories are not accepted universally. Try reading Hunter Lewis's Where Keynes Went Wrong.
sebster wrote:I don't believe in state planning. That's just nonsense.
There is such a massive difference between state involvement in a capitalist economy (which you already have, for feth's sake).
A)If you support expanding the governments role in manipulating the economy, then you support a state planned economy.
B) Never argued such. Am fully aware of the level of both the state and federal involvement. I just disagree with both the current level and how such involvement is implemented.
(note I'm assuming by state you meant the federal government. Am clarifying because state involvement has a double meaning in the US),
Imo, the government as it is currently, is a massive hinderance to and drain upon the economy.
Captain Avatar wrote:
sebster wrote:I think that the problem here is that Obama didn't present anything. Now he did attempt to "dictate" a course of action that immediately silenced all communication between the parties with the overpowering rhetoric.
Truth is neither side was willing to make a serious proposal that consisted of a fair compromise..
So it's clear you haven't even followed the debate. I've linked to Obama's proposal already. Please read. Learn. Know things. Stop basing opinions on things you'd like to be true.
Go back and reread what I typed. Your statement about the Obama proposal completely missed the point of what I typed.
sebster wrote:
No, seriously. Some things are just true. Cars go faster than walking speed.
This debate concept in which anything that someone chooses to dispute must be treated as an equal opinion with all else is just not true. You want to talk about why beltway political debates breakdown to nothing? Well one of the reasons is that no-one is held to account by reality anymore. The Austrian school claimed the Fed's quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation, and they were completely and utterly wrong, nothing of the sort happened at all. But despite being completely wrong, they've still got a seat at the table.
It's like the idea of looking and seeing if what someone is saying is actually true doesn't even exist anymore.
A) There you go with the black and white thinking. It is ironic that below you say that comparisons in isolation have no meaning. What, I'm getting at is that you walking vs car is generally true when but when variables, like the car being out of gas or you are climbing up a mountain, are introduced it becomes a general statement.
B)Depends upon what type of debate is occuring. Might help everyone if the parties agreed upon which rules of debate are used. Thing is, I've yet to see a debate for where a derisive dismissal without some logical argument to back it up is acceptable. If you feel that the point asserted has no merit then just ignore it. If you comment on it then explain. Derisive dismissal violates the base concept of debating
C)Absolutely agree that there is a complete lack of accoutability on both sides. Its this very reason why I feel the US should learn from our european cousins and take steps to give voice to the other political parties.
D) Bernake was completely wrong on his timeline assessment for economic recovery, yet he still has a seat at the table(his job).Couldn't resist.
Now seriously to your point. The Austrian template isn't so much wrong as it is out of date. Since 1996 inflation has slowed beyond any previous projections. Current thought as to why has to do with a decrease in labours share, increased non wage labour compensation and declnes in import prices.
Thing is that we are now seeing and feeling inflation much more than in the past decade.
E) Some truths are not universal but more perspective in nature. You try to take truths from your perspective and claim them as universal. I merely disagree with your demand that I accept your perspective as my truth.
sebster wrote:
*snip
it wasn't what was being debated.
whembly was trying to argue that looking just at government spending in isolation, without any reference to GDP was a meaningful analysis. It isn't.
Good attempt to redefine what you were debating. The original argument was whether the graph illustrated the original point that the sequester is only a minute reduction in planned spending but was not even a cut, just a reduction of the planned increase. In that regard, the graph served its point.
I will admit that you were succesful in shifting away from the original point to a different one that was about spending in relation to the GDP. But that wasn't the original point. You have changed the point by introducing a variable.
If we get to introduce variables then I would like to point out that the graph shows an after sequestration increase in spending that still exceeds current growth or maybe another that just the current spending as depicted in the chart is enough to shake consumer confidence and thus delay economic recovery. Thing is, neither of these would be the original argument.
Edit to add:
This bit of dicourse has used up my allotted free time for a while. My Business keeps me very busy so I will bow out for now. Maybe I'll have more time in a week or two.
Later
sebster tends to do this. Its almost like socialism is his church and liberlism is his god. To him any that contadict the teachings of the liberal apostles is heresy.
I like, especially, how you elevated yourself over your claims regarding Sebster.
Truly, you claimed the moral high ground.
Captain Avatar wrote: Your "the conservatives are always uneducated and wrong" but "I'm a liberal who has some college so I must know more attitude" does nothing to help foster honest communication.
Really, You know not who I am yet, you make the assumption that you are superior. Hubris much?
I've spoken to you in a couple of threads now, and while it's possible you just came off poorly in those threads and you might understand things better than you've shown so far, I'm not going to hold my breath.
In short, I wasn't arrogant but I was patronising. I don't see that as a bad thing when the person being patronised debates as well as you have so far.
By your previous statements in this and in many other threads, you seem to be, at best, an acedemic theorist who has never spent any time in the competitive business world. Your "the conservatives are always uneducated and wrong" but "I'm a liberal who has some college so I must know more attitude" does nothing to help foster honest communication.
Your speculation is miles from my reality. Though it's fun than you think I have an academic level of knowledge. I'm just a working schlubb who's wandered through a variety of private and public jobs.
And it's not that I've been to uni that I think I know more than you (plenty get through the amount of uni and professional training I've done without getting anything like the economics background I've picked up). Mine is more a product of birth (Dad trained as an economist, and so had a lot of the classic economics texts on hand, which sparked my interest).
And note that I'm just saying I know more than you. Not all conservatives. There's plenty of very well informed conservatives out there who I would actually love to be able to just ask questions, and wouldn't even try to debate. It's just that from what I've seen of your posts so far, you're nowhere near that level of knowledge.
The only time I ever run into this kind of blind conciet is when talking with my old class mates who couldn't hack it in the business world and became teachers/professors. You know the old saying, "Those that can,... do. Those that can't.... teach."
And that's just the classic anti-intellectualism of movement conservatives. I mean, that's just lazy.
A) Actually, you did no such thing within that post.
The hell? Seriously dude, this is a text based medium. It's all there, forever.
"That graph is just gakky, gakky nonsense politics.
The issue is not the idea of cuts - Obama's own proposal includes cuts, and cuts to the things Republicans love to talk about cutting - entitlement programs.
The issue is that the sequester includes only here and now cuts, direct reductions in spending today. Which is a fething stupid thing to do when the economy is still struggling. Let me repeat, yet again, Ben Bernanke's testimony to congress;
"Significant progress has been made recently toward reducing the federal budget deficit over the next few years. The projections released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that, under current law, the federal deficit will narrow from 7 percent of GDP last year to 2-1/2 percent in fiscal year 2015.8 As a result, the federal debt held by the public (including that held by the Federal Reserve) is projected to remain roughly 75 percent of GDP through much of the current decade.
However, a substantial portion of the recent progress in lowering the deficit has been concentrated in near-term budget changes, which, taken together, could create a significant headwind for the economic recovery … Moreover, besides having adverse effects on jobs and incomes, a slower recovery would lead to less actual deficit reduction in the short run for any given set of fiscal actions." "
I mean, did you even go back and check. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Even if you have gone back and editted in a proper response it does not change the impact of such a statement at the time it was written.
Did I also edit whembly's response to me, to include the additional text in further responses? How deep does the conspiracy go?!
Seriously dude, this ain't complex. I posted a line dismissing whembly's graph, and then posted an explanation why. He responded, first to my dismissal, and then to the greater answer. You dropped in, having likely not actually bothered to read the previous page of the thread, and saw his response to the first and then second parts, and jumped to a conclusion.
Whatever, that happens. But your effort to continue pretending your first impression was correct is really weird.
B) As long as I am not in violation of Dakkas terms of use, I will drop in at anytime and post my perspective as I please thank you.
Of course you are. And in turn I am free to respond, explaining to you the problems with your arguments.
Now if my comments bother you to the point that you seem compelled to "waste your time" and respond to them, I invite you to use the little ignore button in the corner of your screen.
In all honesty, if you don't like my comment then just do better. You can probably tell I love a good debate. I love it when someone gives an argument I've not seen before, or gives it in a way that makes me re-consider it.
But all I'm getting from you is the same old tired, movement conservative boiler plates, and the old bit of bizarre claim that I'm a socialist or something.
A) Claiming to be a free marketeer does not make you one.
No, but believing in the free market as the cornerstone of the economy does.
Lets just say from a purist classical definition, I feel that your past comments make your claim here seem debatable depensing upon individual perspective.
Good thing the purist classical definition hasn't been relevant for near on a hundred years.
Quote sebster "But where I differ from the right wing is that I've actually studied capitalism and the function of markets, and have an understanding of where they work and why, and where they fail and why."
By your words here. You are making the claim to have a better understanding of capitalism than every right wing person(taken to be read as republican) in existence. That group includes a large number of the best and brightest businessmen in the world, sure you wanna make that claim.
Maybe I should have said 'right wing pundits' or 'the usual collection of right winger natterers that find their way on to Dakka'. There are certainly plenty of people on the right wing of economics who've expanded the field in brilliant ways.
Though if we're going to pick out word choice and speculate on it, we can make a lot out of your decision to mention business leaders, and not say, actual people who study and work in the field of economics. Why not heads of the IMF, or various reserve banks or something? Actual economists, as opposed to business men, who have a very different skill set and knowledge base.
Honestly, you're prejudice and derision toward conservatives is only serving to reinforce the conservative stereo-type of liberals being unreasonable and incapable of compromise.
See, this is exactly what I mean. Boiler plate movement conservative lines. It's like you guys have a script like a telemarketer or something. Anyhow, it's boring as hell.
I disagree, even if we were taking about a purely capitalist economy. Thing is, the US economy is a hybrid economy. The sheer number of government regulations and socialist programs proves this.
Yeah, I know it's a hybrid economy. I just explained that to you. Are you even reading what I type?
In a hybrid economy, when the intrest rates hit zero, there are many other things that can be done aside from increased government spending..
Oh by all means, please list them. I'll contact the Nobel committee and they can start getting your name engraved.
1)The Government can ease both trade and manufacturing stifilng regualtions,
2)Clamp down on the large scale corruption that is syphoning off much needed capital
3)Cutting government spending to first balance the budget but with the goal of reducing the tax burden on the economy. This leaves more working capital for the middle class and the private sector.
4)The government can re-negotiate trade agreements with the aim to increase trade
5)Renegotiate pork lined government contracts for savings and to help employ a greater number of workers
just to name a few
Okay, so that's great. Here you are trying to argue economics, and your list of solutions to a macro problem is a bunch of micro reforms coming straight out of the 'boo government inefficiency' junk pile.
Seriously, please go and read about what macroeconomics actually is, and what the problem of excessive saving is. Learn about the business cycle, and why the inherent responses to the business cycle can sometimes fail (wage stickiness, zero lower bound).
And then realise that has nothing to do with what you posted, and that posting it made you look ridiculous.
Could also just sit back, do nothing and allow the economy to correct itself, you know, the way that free markets are supposed to.
And now we've gotten to the actual Austrian school response to recession. The approach that was found to be so naive and simplistic 80 years ago. So, now please go and read, learn about how the 'it'll all get better in the end' is not just wrong, but fething lazy.
If you can't be bothered doing that, it's because of wage price stickiness, the zero lower bound, and because just waiting for everything to get better in the long term is completely disfunctional;
"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."
B) Funny you mention Keyes. He viewed government spending as a last resort, after lowering taxes.
Keynes. I mean dude, get the name right.
And yeah, Keynes argued for government spending only as a last resort. If you do ever get around to actually reading the work you're trying to debate here, you'd learn Keynes described his primarily as a conservative text, a prescription for what to do as a solution to specific, acute problems in the economy.
Of course, we've since had 80 years of quantitative economics studies that have looked at the effect of various forms of economic stimulus. The Economist published a study a while back. Guess what, tax cuts performed extremely poorly, while direct infrastructure investment performed extremely well.
Also, his theories are not accepted universally. Try reading Hunter Lewis's Where Keynes Went Wrong.
I know they're not accepted universally. Look at say, present day European economic policy, or the Republican party of the US. The point is those movements are intellectually bankrupt, and their inability to accept the complete failure of their models to respond to the GFC is remarkable.
And Hunter Lewis' text is a strange pick. Even if we're just looking at criticisms of Keynes its a very minor work (the Austrian school has produced a lot of efforts over the years). It's just a weird coincidence that of all the books I've been given over many Christmas's by my uncle, that happened to be one of them.
Anyhow, don't tell my uncle but it was a woeful book - the part where he criticises Keynes for arguing from a purely theoretical position, without reference to real world figures is staggering, showing a complete lack of awareness of both the history of economic study and the central tenants of the Austrian school itself. In fact, the one place where you could say Hayek and Keynes agreed was that sound theory was the key, neither man gave much value to quantitive studies (which largely made sense, given the poverty of good data at the time). What's staggered me in Lewis claim though, is that he tries to make this a criticism of Keynes and modern Keynesian economic, while the school evolved to lead the world in producing quantitative methods. Especially puzzling when the Austrian school still reject real world studies (which makes sense, given their models never make any decent macro predictions).
A)If you support expanding the governments role in manipulating the economy, then you support a state planned economy.
Oh my god, that's not what a state planned economy is. These words have actual meanings that you would know if you actually read things.
Never argued such. Am fully aware of the level of both the state and federal involvement. I just disagree with both the current level and how such involvement is implemented.
(note I'm assuming by state you meant the federal government. Am clarifying because state involvement has a double meaning in the US),
Dude, I also live in a country where there is a state and federal government. But in economics the term 'state' has a very clear meaning no matter where you are in the world. 'State' simply means government, as distinct from 'private'.
Imo, the government as it is currently, is a massive hinderance to and drain upon the economy.
And given the actual level of economic knowledge you've shown in this thred, I put it to you that your opinion of such is based entirely in ideology and without any actual knowledge of how private and state actions interact in a modern economy.
Go back and reread what I typed. Your statement about the Obama proposal completely missed the point of what I typed.
Only if 'here is a proposal that offers what you said you wanted' means backing someone into a corner. Which is beyond stupid.
A) There you go with the black and white thinking. It is ironic that below you say that comparisons in isolation have no meaning. What, I'm getting at is that you walking vs car is generally true when but when variables, like the car being out of gas or you are climbing up a mountain, are introduced it becomes a general statement.
Yes, the car could be out of gas. The economy could exist in a magical unicorn land where it's scale is completely independant of the country's economy.
But absent those things, we know cars go faster than people, and government is measured relative to GDP. And arguing otherwise is a thing that sensible, informed people cannot do.
B)Depends upon what type of debate is occuring. Might help everyone if the parties agreed upon which rules of debate are used. Thing is, I've yet to see a debate for where a derisive dismissal without some logical argument to back it up is acceptable. If you feel that the point asserted has no merit then just ignore it. If you comment on it then explain. Derisive dismissal violates the base concept of debating
When a thing is wrong there is no point pretending otherwise. And as long as you read only the part where I state that a thing is wrong, and skim past or just plain miss the part where I explain why the thing was wrong you'll continue to believe that I have done nothing but post a derisive dismissal, and likely moan about it.
And in doing so you'll be wasting everyone's time, especially you're own.
C)Absolutely agree that there is a complete lack of accoutability on both sides. Its this very reason why I feel the US should learn from our european cousins and take steps to give voice to the other political parties.
The issue isn't with the number of political parties, but with the quality of debate, and how easily the media lets nonsense claims through rather than actually providing a factual check.
D) Bernake was completely wrong on his timeline assessment for economic recovery, yet he still has a seat at the table(his job).Couldn't resist.
And the Austrian school claimed hyper-inflation by now. Worrying about being off on a timeline when the other side could not actually have been more wrong seems extremely selective.
And before you think you're looking clever in your dismissal of Bernanke, he's the guy who came up with 'the Great Moderation'. He was on your side (albeit one of the more moderate members, given he believed monetary policy was useful), until the GFC proved how completely wrong that side was, and he was in the position where something sensible actually had to be done.
Now seriously to your point. The Austrian template isn't so much wrong as it is out of date. Since 1996 inflation has slowed beyond any previous projections. Current thought as to why has to do with a decrease in labours share, increased non wage labour compensation and declnes in import prices.
Thing is that we are now seeing and feeling inflation much more than in the past decade.
That you'd talk about problems with the Austrian school and talk only of inflation is kind of the point. You can't just squint and look past GDP and unemployment and pretend those aren't real economic issues.
E) Some truths are not universal but more perspective in nature. You try to take truths from your perspective and claim them as universal. I merely disagree with your demand that I accept your perspective as my truth.
Sure, lots of things are up for debate, and may never be resolved. But we're at a point where the value of the Austrian school as a viable model to Keynesian economics just ain't one. It's failures are complete. It is utterly bankrupt, and produces models with simply no predictive power at all.
Good attempt to redefine what you were debating. The original argument was whether the graph illustrated the original point that the sequester is only a minute reduction in planned spending but was not even a cut, just a reduction of the planned increase. In that regard, the graph served its point.
We know what the point of the graph was. The point is that in presenting the argument as it did, it was a bad graph. First up, the impression of ever increasing government (by showing total spend) was misleading - government by a real measure against GDP is quite constant (and I wasn't redefining my debate - I wasn't even the guy who made that point, something you might know if you'd actually read the thread). Second up, there's my point, that the issue of sequester isn't 'omg less money is spent' but the nature and timing of those cuts - short terms cuts enacted right now is just stupid policy given the economic conditions and the fact that the short term budget is okay - it's into the medium and long term that you need to start making meaningful measures.
I will admit that you were succesful in shifting away from the original point to a different one that was about spending in relation to the GDP.
No seriously, that wasn't even my point.
But that wasn't the original point. You have changed the point by introducing a variable.
No, it was explaining why the argument as given was misleading. That's how debate works.
If we get to introduce variables then I would like to point out that the graph shows an after sequestration increase in spending that still exceeds current growth or maybe another that just the current spending as depicted in the chart is enough to shake consumer confidence and thus delay economic recovery. Thing is, neither of these would be the original argument.
Which is why the original argument was too simplistic, and was challenged. Again, that's how debate works.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would suggest everyone gets off the moral high ground and sticks to presentation of facts.
I always preferred the moral low ground myself. That way they never expect it when you go for their ankles BITEBITEBITE!
And now the angry wiener dog shake of death!
Easy E wrote: Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?
For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?
I know that, while we don't get furlough days, our unit is already feeling it in many ways.
We're getting furlough days in my agency, but we don't yet know how many. The memos sent by the administrator and CFO said it would be up to 14 days. On the other hand, "essential/core" positions probably won't get furloughed much, if at all. Sadly, I doubt my position will be classified as such. The only bright spot is that it will be only one day per pay period, and I get to choose the day (so I can at least score a 3-day weekend out of it).
Easy E wrote: Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?
For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?
I know that, while we don't get furlough days, our unit is already feeling it in many ways.
We're getting furlough days in my agency, but we don't yet know how many. The memos sent by the administrator and CFO said it would be up to 14 days. On the other hand, "essential/core" positions probably won't get furloughed much, if at all. Sadly, I doubt my position will be classified as such. The only bright spot is that it will be only one day per pay period, and I get to choose the day (so I can at least score a 3-day weekend out of it).
They just announced for the Army, that they are cutting all Tuition Assistance for us until at least the end of the fiscal year... so no school for anyone that way :(
Easy E wrote: Is the Angry Weiner Dog Shake of Death like the Harlem Shake?
For those of you in government, has your bosses told you when you can expect to see the "windfall" of Sequestration take effect?
I am lucky enough that my agency (the FTC) planned WELL in advance and will not be suffering from furloughs or RIFs.
My father works for DoD. His department (and many others) are taking an effective 20% pay cut. They have had to cancel many contracts, so many contractors will probably end up getting laid off.
My mother works for DoJ. All of DoJ aside from law enforcement groups are taking an effective 10% pay cut. Like DoD, many of their contracts are being canceled or allowed to run out, costing more contractors their jobs.
That's all I know about first hand. I suspect other agencies are going to end up feeling a pinch similar to DoJ.
I suppose a certain irony in the "cut it all" thought is how much money we waste by cutting, and how much gets wasted in order to fuel big business.
Medicare. We all know Medicare spending is growing out of control, right? After all, we have a large aging population and more and more people are ending up on medicare and living longer. So why then is medicare wasting $50 billion a year on prescriptions? Because insurance companies were so worried about losing money they lobbied, successfully, to remove Medicare's ability to negotiate prescription prices. We have only 5% of medicare claims audited, which leads to rampant waste and fraud but do we hire more auditers? Hahaha of course not. We cut government staff so more and more money is wasted every year.
Whatever. People have fallen for the 'ER MER GERD! LOOK AT THAT DEFICIT!" garbage and now we can't get any actual, sensible reforms through.
Frazzled wrote: How are they taking a 10% or 20% cut when their department cuts are substantially less?
Just wait until the real cuts come.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. DoD has been told they will be furloughed 1 day a week. That is one day a week with no pay, that doesn't count towards retirement or benefits. They lose 20% of their salary for that week, with no option to make up the day. Similarly, DoJ is taking 1 day per pay period (2 weeks). No pay, no leave gained, no 401k contribution, doesn't count towards retirement, etc. etc. That is just pay.
Frazzled wrote: How are they taking a 10% or 20% cut when their department cuts are substantially less?
Just wait until the real cuts come.
If a department has a bunch of things that literally can't be cut, that is, things that are already contracted and can't be gotten out of, then the cuts have to be lumped into a smaller portion of the overall budget, like one particular office or payroll in general.
Frazzled wrote: How are they taking a 10% or 20% cut when their department cuts are substantially less?
Just wait until the real cuts come.
If a department has a bunch of things that literally can't be cut, that is, things that are already contracted and can't be gotten out of, then the cuts have to be lumped into a smaller portion of the overall budget, like one particular office or payroll in general.
Frazzled wrote: How are they taking a 10% or 20% cut when their department cuts are substantially less?
I think another problem is that a 10% (as an example) cut in fiscal spending is hitting partially through the fiscal year. So let's say that a department is halfway through the year, and has been spending at 100%, now they are told that they have 10% less to spend this year. That means that they already spend part of it they will need to cut spending by 20% for the second half to spend the right amount for the whole year.
At least I think so .
We (Department of Veterans Affairs) are exempt so far, since our money gets allocated in a weird way. From what I have been told the VA got hit hard with the government shutdown during the Clinton years, along with everybody else. Since kicking sick veterans out of the hospital and not sending pension checks to guys who lost their legs in World War 2 is the kind of bad PR that even congress wants to avoid they passed a law that our funding gets allocated a year further out than everybody else so that a crisis like this doesn't affect our day-to-day operations in an unexpected way. So for us the sequester goes into effect next fiscal year, if it doesn't get repealed before that.
Furlough days also have different meanings to people in different situations,.
I'm single guy with no kids, no mortgage, a roommate, and three months worth of net pay in the bank. If we had furloughs, I'd cut back on eating out and dip into savings a bit, but I'd be fine.
Other workers are supporting unemployed spouses, children, grandchildren, paying a mortgage, and generally living paycheck to paycheck. It's gonna hurt them a lot more than It'll hurt me.
But, my office is odd in that there are few people with just a bachelors. Lots of the legal assistants and other staff have just a high school diploma, while all the attorney's and judges have JDs. It's an unfair stereotype, but my friends in managment confirm that it's not the lawyers that fail to plan ahead.
That's another thing, even if we get furlough days (which would be dumb since we don't even have enough staff to work right now, so it would seem that they should just cut positions from the budget that have never been filled) I just pick up the phone and pick up an extra day at another hospital and make more than I would have made at my regular job.
Easy enough for nurses, but our unit clerks/house keepers/maintenance guys/etc won't have it that easy.
Frazzled wrote: How are they taking a 10% or 20% cut when their department cuts are substantially less?
Just wait until the real cuts come.
If a department has a bunch of things that literally can't be cut, that is, things that are already contracted and can't be gotten out of, then the cuts have to be lumped into a smaller portion of the overall budget, like one particular office or payroll in general.
For example, if your department has a 10 year lease on its office building, it can't cut that. It might be possible to sub-let the building and move somewhere cheaper, though this would of course incur legal and relocation costs.
Frazzled wrote: How are they taking a 10% or 20% cut when their department cuts are substantially less?
Just wait until the real cuts come.
If a department has a bunch of things that literally can't be cut, that is, things that are already contracted and can't be gotten out of, then the cuts have to be lumped into a smaller portion of the overall budget, like one particular office or payroll in general.
For example, if your department has a 10 year lease on its office building, it can't cut that. It might be possible to sub-let the building and move somewhere cheaper, though this would of course incur legal and relocation costs.
Actually it probably could be. Its the government. They just don't want to.
d-usa wrote: That's another thing, even if we get furlough days (which would be dumb since we don't even have enough staff to work right now, so it would seem that they should just cut positions from the budget that have never been filled) I just pick up the phone and pick up an extra day at another hospital and make more than I would have made at my regular job.
Easy enough for nurses, but our unit clerks/house keepers/maintenance guys/etc won't have it that easy.
Lucky. We've been reminded that all outside work still needs to be approved ahead of time. Watching one guy try, it's just not worth it.
d-usa wrote: That's another thing, even if we get furlough days (which would be dumb since we don't even have enough staff to work right now, so it would seem that they should just cut positions from the budget that have never been filled)
I know in our agency (a part of DOJ), generally speaking, if you remove a position from the budget, it will take an act of God to get it back. And it's very hard to fill positions in my agency, because they all require a background check to get clearance. So even after you select a candidate, they may have already found another job by the time the background check clears, and then you have to start the hiring process all over again. It took three years to finally fill one position in one group (me) because of that constant cycle.
: 
