Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 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...

Basic game theory dictates that firing them all and replacing them will result in the exact same results with different people.

Everyone is making their optimal plays in washington. It's just that those plays don't help us.

So, it's here.....

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.

From David Weigel, a right winger.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/28/the_nature_of_the_threat.html

Don't even get me started on the "Friends of Hamas" bit either.

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.

Seems like we have enough jack somewhere...

 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.

 Easy E wrote:
So, it's here.....

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.

From David Weigel, a right winger.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/28/the_nature_of_the_threat.html

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 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?

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

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.

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?

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

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.

I disagree with you on this premise.

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.

 whembly wrote:

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.

That's what the pols are afraid of...

Now, it's looking like they're crying wolf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

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.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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...

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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"

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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)

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

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.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

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.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

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.

Yup.

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.